UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5045
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RICHARD AARON MCCRAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CR-03-602)
Submitted: September 30, 2005 Decided: November 3, 2005
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., Marcia O. Wright, BYNUM & JENKINS,
P.L.L.C., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty,
United States Attorney, Patricia T. Giles, Steven D. Mellin,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Richard Aaron McCray appeals his conviction, pursuant to
a guilty plea, for one count of bank robbery in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). McCray was sentenced to seventy-eight
months’ imprisonment and $5391 in restitution.
On appeal, McCray asserts the district court erred by
failing to adequately inquire into his competency. Because McCray
did not object during the plea colloquy or seek to withdraw his
plea in the district court, this court’s review is for plain error.
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002). Consequently,
McCray must show (1) error; (2) that was plain; (3) that affected
his substantial rights; and (4) the error seriously affected the
fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.
Id. at 62-63; United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). To
establish that his substantial rights were affected, McCray must
demonstrate that absent the errors, he would not have entered his
guilty plea. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524 (4th
Cir. 2002).
“Before a court may accept a guilty plea, it must ensure
that the defendant is competent to enter the plea.” United States
v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561, 564 (4th Cir. 1999). The test for
competency is “whether [the defendant] has sufficient present
ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of
rational understanding--and whether he has a rational as well as
- 2 -
factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Dusky v.
United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960). “As in any criminal case, a
competency determination is necessary only when a court has reason
to doubt the defendant's competence.” Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S.
389, 401 n.13 (1993). The record reflects that McCray was found
competent in two mental evaluations, and that he was responsive and
coherent during the plea hearing. Further, at the plea hearing,
McCray’s counsel did not raise any concerns regarding McCray’s
ability to comprehend the proceedings when given the opportunity to
do so. Indeed, the record is devoid of any facts establishing
either that McCray was incompetent or that the district court
failed to adequately inquire as to his capacity to understand the
charges against him or the consequences of his guilty plea.
Accordingly, we conclude McCray’s plea was knowing and voluntary.
We affirm McCray’s conviction and sentence. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -