[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-14740
SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 08-20534-CR-JEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAINGELUS SAINGERARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 30, 2010)
Before EDMONDSON, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Saingelus Saingerard appeals, contesting the district court’s determination
that Saingerard was competent to stand trial. No reversible error has been shown;
we affirm.
During a period of supervised release following his conviction for several
federal drug offenses, Saingerard resided in an Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement processing center . While there, he punched an officer and bit off a
portion of the officer’s little finger. Saingerard was indicted on one count of
assaulting a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1).
The district court granted the government’s motion for a hearing on
Saingerard’s competency to stand trial. At the hearing, two experts presented
conflicting evidence. Dr. Heather Holmes, testifying on behalf of Saingerard,
asserted that he suffered from a delusional disorder with associated depression that
could affect his ability to assist in his own defense. Dr. Rodolfo Buigas, testifying
on behalf of the government, asserted that Saingerard suffered from a paranoid
personality disorder but that this disorder did not affect his ability to understand
the legal process and to assist in his defense. At the district court’s request, both
parties submitted memoranda and proposed orders on the issue of Saingerard’s
2
competency.
After considering the evidence and the parties’ memoranda, the district court
determined that Saingerard was able to understand the legal process, relay
information to his lawyer, and assist in decisionmaking. Thus, the court
determined that he was competent to stand trial.
Saingerard later moved to renew his motion to be declared incompetent.
The court responded by ordering additional psychological testing. At a second
competency hearing, the court reviewed the results of the additional testing as well
as the evidence presented at the first hearing and again determined that Saingerard
was competent to stand trial.
At trial, a jury convicted Saingerard of the charged offense. Saingerard has
appealed, arguing the district court erred in crediting the testimony of the
government’s expert and that the court’s own observations supported a finding that
Saingerard lacked competency to stand trial.
We review a district court’s determination of “‘competency to stand trial as a
factfinding subject to reversal only for clear error.’” United States v. Izquierdo,
448 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Hogan, 986 F.2d
1364, 1371 (11th Cir. 1993)).
A person is incompetent to stand trial if “there is reasonable cause to believe
3
that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect
rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand
the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in
his defense.” 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a); see also Dusky v. United States, 80 S. Ct. 788,
789 (1960).
Saingerard was given ample opportunity to demonstrate incompetence to
stand trial. The district court did not commit clear error in considering the
conflicting expert testimony and crediting one view over the other. “‘Where there
are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them
cannot be clearly erroneous.’” Izquierdo, 448 F.3d at 1278 (quoting Anderson v.
City of Bessemer City, 105 S. Ct. 1504, 1511 (1985)). Because the district court
did not clearly err in its determination that Saingerard was competent to stand trial,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4