This Court cited this language with approval in holding that a trial court did not err in refusing to allow a defendant to proceed pro se until after a competency hearing which had already been ordered. United States v. Dye, 351 Fed.Appx. 92, 94 (6th Cir.2009).The cases discussed above differ slightly from this one in that those defendants had not actually been found competent to waive counsel before they were allowed to proceed pro se into their competency hearings.

Notice of the new dates was given to Defendant's counsel, as an agent for Defendant. See United States v. Dye, 2009 WL 3644655 at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 5, 2009) (finding notice to attorney was sufficient to establish notice to the defendant). Defendant's decision to continue pro se with standby counsel did not change any of the deadlines established by this Court.