United States v. Sherwin Tyrneal Nickels

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 20, 2003
No. 02-13077 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________

D.C. Docket No. 01-00183-CR-001

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHERWIN TYRNEAL NICKELS,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(March 20, 2003)

Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Sherwin Tyrneal Nickels (“Nickels”) appeals the district court’s

denial of his motion for a presentence psychiatric or psychological examination
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3552(c) and 4241. Specifically, Nickels argues that the district

court abused its discretion in denying his § 3552(c) motion. He also argues that

the district court erred in denying his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 because

there existed reasonable cause to believe that he was incompetent to stand trial or

to be sentenced.

I.

Section 3552(c) provides:

If the court, before or after its receipt of a report specified
in subsection (a) or (b) desires more information than is
otherwise available to it as a basis for determining the
mental condition of the defendant, the court may order the
same psychiatric or psychological examination and report
thereon as may be ordered under section 4244(b) of this
title.

18 U.S.C. § 3552(c). We review the district court’s denial of a § 3552(c) motion

for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Limberopoulos, 26 F.3d 245, 254 (1st

Cir. 1994). Because the district court had adequate information to make a decision

regarding Nickels’s mental condition, and did not believe that it needed additional

information to make its determination, we hold that the district court did not abuse

its discretion in denying Nickels’s motion for a presentence psychological

examination under 18 U.S.C. § 3552(c).

II.

2
 Nickels also argues that the district court erred in denying his motion under

18 U.S.C. § 4241 because reasonable cause existed to believe that he was

incompetent to stand trial or to be sentenced. He further contends that the district

court used an incorrect legal standard to determine whether to grant his § 4241

motion.

Section 4241 provides:

(a) Motion to determine competency of defendant. – At
any time after the commencement of a prosecution for an
offense and prior to the sentencing of the defendant, the
defendant or the attorney for the Government may file a
motion for a hearing to determine the mental competency
of the defendant. The court shall grant the motion, or shall
order such a hearing on its own motion, if there is
reasonable cause to believe 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.

(b) Psychiatric or psychological examination and
report. – Prior to the date of the hearing, the court may
order that a psychiatric or psychological examination of the
defendant be conducted, and that a psychiatric or
psychological report be filed with the court, pursuant to the
provisions of section 4247(b) and (c).

18 U.S.C. § 4241(a), (b).

3
 We review the denial of a § 4241 motion for an abuse of discretion. United

States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 396 (4th Cir. 2002); United States v. George, 85

F.3d 1433, 1436-37 (9th Cir. 1996). We have held that “a trial court may rule on a

§ 4241 motion of incompetency without benefit of a full dress hearing so long as

the court has no ‘bona fide doubt’ as to the competence of the defendant.” United

States v. Cruz, 805 F.2d 1464, 1479 (11th Cir. 1986). “The legal test for

competency is whether the defendant had ‘sufficient present ability to consult with

his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding’ and whether he had

‘a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.’” Id.

(quoting Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S. Ct. 788, 789 4 L. Ed. 2d

824 (1960)).

After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court used the

proper standard in denying Nickels’s motion under 18 U.S.C. § 4241. Nickels did

not present any bona fide doubt as to his competency to be sentenced. The

district court also determined that Nickels had consulted rationally with his

attorney, had an understanding of the proceedings against him, and was competent

to enter a guilty plea.

III.

4
 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s order denying

Nickels’s motion for a presentence or psychological examination.

AFFIRMED.1

1
The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal is DENIED.

5