ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE [#536]

DENISE PAGE HOOD, Chief District Judge.

Defendant Roderek Perry filed a pro se motion with the Court on January 24, 2018 titled "Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Under Commerce Clause." [Dkt. No. 532] In response, the Government filed a Motion to Strike Defendant's filing. [Dkt. No. 536]

Defendant Perry had legal counsel representing him at the time he filed his document (and continues to have legal counsel representing him). It is wellestablished law in the Sixth Circuit that a criminal defendant cannot proceed with hybrid representation, whereby he asserts both the right to proceed pro se and the right to counsel — he must choose one or the other. See, e.g., United States v. Mosely, 810 F.2d 93, 97 (6th Cir. 1987) (citing United States v. Conder, 423 F.2d 904, 908 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 958 (1970)). The only possible exception would be if the Court permits a form of hybrid representation. Mosely, 810 F.2d at 97-98.

Defendant Perry never filed a motion to proceed pro se or by hybrid representation. The Court has not determined, and does not determine, that hybrid representation is appropriate or necessary at this stage of the proceedings. The pro se filing by Defendant Perry will be stricken from the record.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Government's Motion to Strike [Dkt. No. 536] is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall STRIKE Docket No. 532.

IT IS ORDERED.