Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca6-14-03847/USCOURTS-ca6-14-03847-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louis D. Amir
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 16a0105n.06

Case No. 14-3847

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LOUIS D. AMIR,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

Before: MERRITT, GIBBONS, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.

MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Louis D. Amir challenges his criminal conviction and 

sentence, arguing that he did not receive constitutionally adequate counsel at a competency 

hearing conducted before his trial. The district court determined that Amir’s counsel at his 

competency hearing satisfied the standard required by United States v. Ross, 703 F.3d 856 (6th 

Cir. 2012). We agree with the district court and affirm Amir’s conviction.

I. Facts and Procedural History

In October 2010, Amir was indicted on charges relating to a series of financial 

transactions involving property in Ohio. From the outset of his prosecution, Amir has attempted 

to argue that he is not a citizen of the United States, but a citizen of the “Republic of Ohio,” to 

whom our federal courts’ jurisdiction does not apply. 

 Case: 14-3847 Document: 20-2 Filed: 02/19/2016 Page: 1
Case No. 14-3847

United States v. Amir

- 2 -

Shortly after Amir’s arraignment, the government filed a motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 4241 for a determination of his mental competency. At a subsequent hearing on that motion, 

the district court granted defense counsel’s motion to withdraw in light of Amir’s stated intent to 

represent himself, but appointed Lawrence Whitney as standby counsel because of a concern 

over whether Amir had the ability to waive his right to counsel given the competency issue the 

government had raised. After another hearing, the district court granted the government’s 

request for a mental competency evaluation. Following a court-ordered competency evaluation 

of Amir by psychologist Dr. Dia Brannen, a magistrate judge conducted a competency hearing, 

during which Amir represented himself with appointed standby counsel Whitney present. The 

government presented Brannen’s report on Amir’s mental competency, which concluded that he 

was competent to stand trial. While asserting his competence, Amir refused to stipulate to the 

report and denied the statements contained within it. Standby counsel Whitney did not take an 

active role in the hearing. The magistrate judge accepted the report’s findings and recommended 

that Amir was competent to stand trial; the district court accepted that recommendation.

Amir’s case proceeded to trial, which resulted in convictions of wire fraud, conspiracy to 

commit wire fraud, money laundering, and perjury. The district court sentenced Amir to 

151 months of imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release and ordered him to 

pay restitution in the amount of $6,592,637. 

Amir appealed his conviction to our Court, raising his jurisdictional defense in a pro se 

brief. His appointed counsel also filed a brief arguing that Amir had been denied counsel at his 

competency hearing in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Another panel of our Court held that 

the record before it was insufficient to determine if Whitney’s performance as standby counsel 

had satisfied Amir’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by providing “‘meaningful adversarial 

testing’ of Amir’s competency” and remanded the case to the district court “for an evidentiary 

 Case: 14-3847 Document: 20-2 Filed: 02/19/2016 Page: 2
Case No. 14-3847

United States v. Amir

- 3 -

hearing to determine whether Amir was unconstitutionally deprived of representation at his 

competency hearing.” United States v. Amir, No. 11-4413, slip op. at 3-4 (6th Cir. May 15, 

2014) (quoting Ross, 703 F.3d at 874). 

At the evidentiary hearing, Whitney testified to his experience, indicating: that he had 

nearly 40 years of criminal defense experience; that competency or insanity evaluations had been 

involved in several of his federal representations and 12 to 15 of his state representations; that he 

had experience reviewing psychological examination reports and independently assessing a 

defendant’s competency; that he had served as standby counsel several times in federal court; 

that he believed standby counsel had an independent obligation to alert the court to any concerns 

about the defendant’s competency; and that he had notified courts when he had had such 

concerns in the past. 

As to his standby representation of Amir, Whitney testified: that he met with Amir 

several times before his competency hearing; that he communicated to Amir that he did not 

believe Amir’s jurisdictional defense would succeed; that he nonetheless believed Amir to be 

competent because he could rationally and logically discuss his case; that he discussed with Amir 

the process involved in a competency evaluation; that he met with Dr. Brannen to discuss the 

findings in Dr. Brannen’s report; that he agreed with the report’s findings; and that he delivered 

the report to Amir, discussed its conclusions with Amir, and encouraged Amir to stipulate to it.

As to the competency hearing, Whitney testified that he made a strategic decision not to 

challenge the psychological evaluation report, or cross-examine Dr. Brannen because he agreed 

with the report and because his own independent assessment was that Amir was competent. 

Whitney also testified that his decision was made independent of Amir’s own belief in his 

competence, and that had he been concerned about Amir’s competence, he would have raised the 

issue to the court. 

 Case: 14-3847 Document: 20-2 Filed: 02/19/2016 Page: 3
Case No. 14-3847

United States v. Amir

- 4 -

Amir also testified at the competency hearing, claiming that a detention facility case 

worker — and not Whitney — delivered the psychologist’s report to him, and claiming that 

Whitney never “inform[ed] me that he read the actual competency evaluation.” 

The district court credited Whitney’s testimony, and determined that his actions as 

standby counsel amounted to meaningful adversarial testing sufficient to satisfy Amir’s Sixth 

Amendment right to counsel. United States v. Amir, No. 1:10CR439, 2014 WL 4182735, at *4-5

(N.D. Ohio Aug. 21, 2014).

Amir now brings this appeal, challenging the district court’s judgment that he was 

adequately represented by counsel at his competency hearing.1 

II. Discussion

We review the constitutional adequacy of Amir’s standby counsel at his competency 

hearing de novo, and we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error.2 United States 

v. Ross (Ross II), 619 F. App’x 453, 455 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 

517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 948 (1995)).

A competency hearing is a “critical stage” of a criminal proceeding, and it is “settled that 

a complete absence of counsel at a critical stage of a criminal proceeding is a per se Sixth 

Amendment violation warranting reversal of a conviction, a sentence, or both, as applicable, 

without analysis for prejudice or harmless error.” Ross, 703 F.3d at 873-74 (6th Cir. 2012) 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Where a defendant is provided standby counsel 

 

1

At the end of his brief, Amir informally raises the distinct argument that the district court erred by 

determining only that he was competent to stand trial without also determining that he was competent to represent 

himself at trial. This issue was neither raised by Amir in his first appeal, nor the subject of our Court’s limited 

remand after that appeal. Thus, it is not properly before us. See United States v. McKinley, 227 F.3d 716, 718 (6th 

Cir. 2000) (holding that a party waives a claim when it fails to seek review on initial appeal); United States v. 

Moore, 131 F.3d 595, 599 (6th Cir. 1997) (limiting the district court and parties to issues presented in the limited 

remand instruction).

2 Because Amir demonstrates no fault with the district court’s fact finding, and because our review of the 

record indicates no clear error, we affirm and adopt the facts as found by the district court.

 Case: 14-3847 Document: 20-2 Filed: 02/19/2016 Page: 4
Case No. 14-3847

United States v. Amir

- 5 -

at a competency hearing, standby counsel must offer “meaningful adversarial testing” of the 

defendant’s competence in order to satisfy the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. 

Id. at 872 (citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 656-57 (1984)). 

Where the defendant, standby counsel, and a psychologist evaluating the defendant’s 

competence all independently believe that the defendant is competent, the “meaningful 

adversarial testing” standard does not require standby counsel “to argue that [the defendant is] 

incompetent simply for the sake of playing devil’s advocate and airing that perspective in court.” 

Ross II, 619 F. App’x at 456. Instead, in such a scenario — like the one here — standby counsel 

can satisfy the “meaningful adversarial testing” standard by: “adequately considering [the 

defendant’s] competency on his own, providing information to aid [an evaluating psychologist]

in making an informed analysis, analyzing [the psychologist’s] completed report, and preparing 

for the [competency] hearing. Id. If standby counsel does not contest the defendant’s 

competence, it must be because he agrees the defendant is competent, “rather than a belief that 

he simply had no obligation to do so.” Id. If standby counsel fails to participate in the 

competency hearing for reasons other than strategy and an independent belief in the defendant’s 

competence — such as instructions from the presiding judge foreclosing participation — the 

defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel may be violated. See United States v. Martin, 

608 F. App’x 340, 344-45 (6th Cir. 2015). 

Amir’s case is very similar to Ross and Ross II. Ross sought to represent himself, but 

was provided with standby counsel at a competency hearing before trial. Ross, 703 F.3d at 865-

66. A court-appointed psychologist concluded that Ross was competent, Ross believed himself 

competent, and standby counsel independently concluded that Ross was competent. Ross II, 

619 F. App’x at 456. Ross’s standby counsel “did not participate to any meaningful degree” 

during the competency hearing, Ross, 703 F.3d at 873, but did provide Ross with a copy of the 

 Case: 14-3847 Document: 20-2 Filed: 02/19/2016 Page: 5
Case No. 14-3847

United States v. Amir

- 6 -

psychologist’s report and discussed it with both Ross and the psychologist. Ross II, 619 F. 

App’x at 456. Ross’s attorney decided “not to contest the report [at the competency hearing] 

based on his agreement with it, rather than a belief that he simply had no obligation to do so.” 

Id. Ross was found competent and proceeded to trial, where he was convicted. Ross, 703 F.3d 

at 866. Ross appealed his conviction to our Court, challenging, among other things, the 

adequacy of his representation at the competency hearing. Id. at 871-873. Our Court determined 

that the adequacy of counsel claim should be determined according to the “meaningful 

adversarial testing” standard of Cronic, 466 U.S. at 656-57, but concluded that the record was 

insufficient to allow a determination of the adequacy of Ross’s counsel at his competency 

hearing. Id. at 872-873. So, our Court remanded to the district court with instructions to conduct 

an evidentiary hearing and determine if Ross’s standby counsel had provided constitutionally 

sufficient “meaningful adversarial testing” in his representation of Ross at the competency 

hearing. Id. at 873-874. After the evidentiary hearing, the district court found that Ross had 

been adequately represented at his competency hearing, and upheld his conviction. Ross II, 

619 F. App’x at 454. Ross again appealed, challenging that district court’s determination that 

standby counsel had provided sufficient “meaningful adversarial testing.” Id. Our Court 

affirmed the judgment of the district court, finding that Ross’s standby counsel “provided 

constitutionally adequate representation to Ross leading up to and during the competency hearing 

by: adequately considering Ross’s competency on his own, providing information to aid [the 

court-appointed psychologist] in making an informed analysis, analyzing [the psychologist’s]

completed report, and preparing for the hearing.” Id. at 456. Our court also emphasized that the 

standby counsel’s “decision not to contest the report was based on his agreement with it, rather 

than a belief that he simply had no obligation to do so.” Id.

 Case: 14-3847 Document: 20-2 Filed: 02/19/2016 Page: 6
Case No. 14-3847

United States v. Amir

- 7 -

Although Ross II is an unpublished decision that does not bind this Court, Scarber v. 

Palmer, 808 F.3d 1093, 1096 (6th Cir. 2015), we are persuaded that its reasoning and result are 

correct, and we follow it to reach the same result here. After its evidentiary hearing, the district 

court gave a thorough explanation of its decision consonant with our reasoning in Ross II:

[T]he Court underscores the fact that counsel (1) discussed the 

issue of competency with defendant and provided reasoned and 

appropriate counsel to defendant relative to it, (2) reviewed and 

analyzed the competency report, (3) made a sound and deliberate 

strategic decision not to cross-examine Dr. Brennan or challenge 

the findings in her report, and (4) made an independent 

determination absent defendant's statements that consulting with an 

independent psychologist was unnecessary. The Court also finds 

significant the fact that counsel at all times retained the 

independent obligation to raise with the Court the issue of 

defendant's competency if he believed that defendant was not 

competent to stand trial.

Amir, 2014 WL 4182735, at *4.

We agree. Standby counsel Whitney: relied on his extensive experience with defendants 

whose competence had been challenged to independently determine Amir was competent; 

discussed Amir with Dr. Brannen; reviewed Brannen’s report; delivered the report to Amir and 

explained it to him; explained the competency hearing procedure to Amir; encouraged Amir to 

stipulate to Brannen’s report (although Amir declined); made the strategic decision not to assert 

himself during the competency hearing because he did not doubt Amir’s competency or ability to 

understand the proceedings; and remained aware of his independent obligation to present to the 

court any concerns he might have had about Amir’s competency or ability to understand the 

proceedings. In a scenario where neither the defendant, nor the court-appointed psychologist, 

nor the standby counsel doubts the defendant’s competence to stand trial, “meaningful 

adversarial testing” sufficient to satisfy the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel requires 

nothing more. See Ross II, 619 F. App’x at 456.

 Case: 14-3847 Document: 20-2 Filed: 02/19/2016 Page: 7
Case No. 14-3847

United States v. Amir

- 8 -

Amir attempts to liken his case to Martin, in which our Court determined that a defendant 

had been unconstitutionally deprived of counsel at a competency hearing because his standby 

counsel had been “foreclosed” from participating in the hearing by instructions from the 

presiding judge, did not appear to have “ever expressed any position” on the defendant’s 

competence, and did not appear to have “reviewed any documents” concerning the defendant’s 

competence. 608 F. App’x at 344-46. But Amir’s attempted comparison does not stand up. 

Whitney believed he had an independent duty to raise any competency concerns with the court, 

was not forbidden from participating in the competency hearing, and strategically chose not to

actively participate because he had reviewed Dr. Brannen’s report and agreed with its conclusion 

that Amir was competent. Martin itself recognized that such actions by standby counsel can 

satisfy a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel: 

Standby counsel need not present argument during the competency 

hearing to satisfy this standard, as long as the decision not to 

contest competency is an independent, strategic one, borne out of 

adequate investigation of the defendant’s competency and 

appropriate preparation for the hearing. . . . Adequate investigation 

entails, at a minimum, reading and analyzing a mental health 

evaluation of the defendant prepared for the hearing.

608 F. App’x at 344 (citing Ross, 703 F.3d at 873-74). 

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Whitney’s efforts as standby counsel provided for 

“meaningful adversarial testing” of Amir’s competency to stand trial. Thus, Amir was not 

deprived of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-3847 Document: 20-2 Filed: 02/19/2016 Page: 8