Can a criminal defendant immediately appeal the revocation of her pro se status by a district court judge sua sponte during the trial?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED . @ Can a cnminal defendant immediatdy appeal the revocation of her Pro soe status by a dismet court Judge sua Sponte during the ae the, OAted States Count et opt (2 Mom appea Iatsle order has nob f, S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cireuit und a case addressing this exact issuc ? See 28 USC $1241 ("The court of A .. yo. appeals fom all Binal decre., PPeals ... Shall have ‘junsdichon ot States ...")Mid cisions of the distret courts of the United (aay stahing Foe et ore United States, 489 U.S. 394, 34g ng that, in criminal cases , the nality requirement generally “prohibits appellate renew unt\ alter convicheA and impos iter of sentence "); Flanagan v. United States , 465 u.s. 254, 240 (1484) Cstahng, WA Case IN Which a'tnal court entered an order dsqualfyin Counsel” from Participahen in an achon, What "Esluch an order fails hs) to satefy the stmnaent conditions for gualificahon AS an immediately appealable collatevenl order, and the © Sorina pence against interlocutory review in criminal cases apply in wu"); United States v. Romeo -Ochneg , B54 F. aa 5S, Be C At Civ. 200DC stating tats is be” +o be Appealablo Under tne collateral order doctrine, an ord must C1) conclusively determine the disputed queshon, Dresolve an (mM portant \Ssue completely sepevate from the ments of tHe achon , and (2) be eHectively Unreviewable on appeal from a Final judgment ’"Cquohing Will_v. Hallock , 546 US. 345, 344 (2000)). (2)IS the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision that revocahon of a crimmal defendants pro se status during the Sentencing Phase not an Immediately appeala ble order, a2 under the dwestihere rule , the mal courts ‘yarisdichon IS Not Impacted and the achon may proceed as if no nehce of appeal has been filed by formerly pro se criminal defendant, correct 7 , CUnder the divestiture rule, the fling ot appeals and divests the diemet court of its contol over those aspectS of the case wivolved in the appeal.” Griggs v Provident Consumer Discount Co., 454 U.s. 56,58C1482), The divestiture rule “was created to prevent twocourts fom simultancously: Considenna the same issues in, OY aspects of,a case.” United States %, Powell , Swe. BA 28,31 Cath Cy. 1444), But a distict court retains Jjurisdichon ever a matter if a party appeals a nonappcalable order, See Estate of Conners bby Meredith’ y, OiConnex , GF, dA 656,658 Cate ar. 144) CET raneer ot jurisdichon from dismet court to the court of appeals 1% not elected. if a litiqant files a nohee of appeal tro, an unappealable order, the tal cot te ‘erisdichon 16 not Wrabachea ™ Puy achon may proceeci as if no notice ot Appeal has been