
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Love Thomas COOPER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-30152.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 6, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 12, 2013.
    Bryan R. Whittaker, Office of the U.S. Attorneys, Helena, MT, Leif Johnson, USBI-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jeremy Scott Yellin, Esquire, Attorney at Law, Havre, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Love Thomas Cooper, Las Vegas, NV, pro se.
    Before: FISHER, GOULD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Love Thomas Wright Cooper appeals his conviction and sentence for felony possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The district court adequately apprised Cooper of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation when it informed him of the numerous tasks that he would have to undertake to prepare for trial, emphasized that he would have to accomplish these tasks while in confinement, informed him that he would be held to the same standard as any attorney, told Cooper that no exceptions would be made for him and said that it would be “a difficult road” ahead of him if he chose to represent himself. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). Cooper’s decision to nevertheless proceed without counsel was thus knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Farhad, 190 F.3d 1097, 1098-1100 (9th Cir.1999).

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an above-Guidelines, 80-month sentence of imprisonment. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The sentence imposed was justified by Cooper’s manifest lack of respect for the law and the danger to the community demonstrated by his past criminal conduct and statements made while incarcerated. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The district court also “adequately explain[ed]” the sentence. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50, 128 S.Ct. 586.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     