CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CARLOS ELLIS POWELL (14-2506); ERIC JEROME POWELL (14-2507); EARNEST LEE PROGE (15-1724),
Defendants-Appellants.
   Nos. 14-2506/2507/15-1724
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:12-cr-20052—Stephen J. Murphy III, District Judge.
Argued: August 3, 2016
Decided and Filed: February 6, 2017
Before: GUY, BOGGS, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RALPH B. GUY, JR., Circuit Judge. Defendants Carlos Powell, Eric Powell, and Earnest Proge, Jr., were tried together and convicted of offenses arising out of a large-scale narcotics distribution operation in Detroit, Michigan. First, all three defendants challenge the district court’s orders denying their motions to suppress evidence derived from: (1) the collection of cellular-phone identification and location information; (2) the use of a GPS tracking device; and (3) the monitoring of video cameras installed on nearby utility poles. Second, raising Sixth Amendment claims, Carlos Powell argues that he was denied his right to represent himself, and Earnest Proge contends that he was denied counsel of his choice. Third, Earnest Proge raises separate claims of error, including challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, and an error in the judgment entered against him. Finally, Carlos Powell has raised additional claims in a pro se brief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the denial of the defendants’ motions to suppress; affirm the judgments entered against Carlos and Eric Powell, respectively; and vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion with respect to Earnest Proge only.