harris retained and dismissed and attorney he had several other attorneys appointed for him he attempted to really reach re re retain the dismissed attorney and then he had a  completely normal human reaction when confronted would have voted for it for mr harris however the constitution and the relevant statue require more than a normal human reaction because the competence and at that time minister again he entered this case the district court had had numerous conferences i think over ten with your client on the subject of his relationship with counsel the trial date his retention of coun retained counsel and appointed counsel his right to retain counsel of his choice discovery obligations of the government so what exactly i mean what why is mr van he had had much less exposure to  to the defendant at the time that this call was made by the district court so i guess i'm having difficulty seeing the abuse of discretion so help me out  states mister harris's conviction should be affirmed at no point below did the district court have a reasonable cause to believe that mister harris had a mental disease or defect that would make him incompetent to stand trial stand trial and what's more we have in fact a record that reflects that mister harris was competent at trial i would like to take a moment to clarify what exactly happened here or could have happened  here with respect to judge livingston's question no there wasn't a formal motion here made for a competency hearing and in fact there is just a letter suggesting that mister harris's th attorney had concerns about his mental state and the court held a conference in response to that letter and although my colleague from mister harris says that the docket called that a competency hearing just to note there is a notice of hearing that refers to this as being a competency hearing when it's actually held it's referred to as a pretrial conference and it doesn't follow any of the formal structures that are contemplated by  one reason that mr van he provided for why he was concerned about mister parrish's his mental state which was his refusal to meet with him mister harris's refusal to meet with mr van he  the court looked in to that and there was no abuse of discretion in concluding that that didn't establish any reasonable cause to believe that mister harris had a mental disease or or defect and this fact raised by mr van he really needs to be understood within the full context of the proceedings that happened before the district court as again judge livingston referenced there was no morass of court appearances between mister in which mister harris interacted with the district court for several months before mr van he was appointed and mister harris had three attorneys who represented to him as well as one th attorney mister sullivan who consulted with him for multiple hours none of those attorneys raised any sort of question about mister harris's competence and mister van he st raised this issue after one failed attempt to meet with mister harris so he had virtually no interaction with mister harris again the only reason he had for even raising the concern was mister harrison refusal to meet with him at the conference in response to that letter the district court asked mister harris directly about that and the explanation he received was one that he had heard quite frequently in the proceedings one that the court had heard rather frequently throughout the proceedings which was that mister harris wanted to retain a specific attorney in rochester and one able to do so and that's frustrated about it so his refusal to meet with mr van he didn't reflect any sort of inability to assist in his defense but rather an unwillingness to work with the attorney which wasn't the one that he wanted and all of that aside we couldn't find there is no abuse of discretion in anything that the court decided be it it's decision not to hold a full conference the hearing holding a hearing again keyed off of the reasonable cause or it's the lack of finding of facts on the record about mister harris's mental competence again because we never even reached the level of a reasonable cause but again all of that aside there can be no prejudiced scene in this case because we have a full trial record it shows that mister harris did actively participate in his defense he passed notes to his attorney conferred with his attorney in the courts present i made suggestions about questions for witnessed and there's nothing in the record that indicates that mister harris manifested any sort of sign of mental disability approach his conduct seemed to be appropriate and this court has before it the pre sentence investigation report that also detailed mister harris's mental health history his criminal history and  his work history none of which suggests that there's any sort of mental defect or disease that would render him incompetent to stand trial and i'm happy to answer any questions that the panel might have or otherwise rest on your brief exactly thank you your honor thank you attorney advised the court that i went to meet this guy he won't shake my hands he swearing at me after having just met him he won't talk to me even though we have a trial in a couple  van he ended up representing and the trial in the trial went ahead and did it mister van he make statements on the record after the trial or during the trial that mister harris was definitely participating fully even adopted some result in mention that the judge earlier on don't we look at just the attorney's comments in the context of whether mister harris was able to assist in his own thank you thank you and we will take the matter