[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-10975

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:14-cr-00077-CDL-CHW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

versus

DANIEL ERIC COBBLE, 

Defendant – Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(February 6, 2018)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Daniel Cobble, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court’s grant of a 

joint motion from his counsel and the government to find him incompetent and 

Case: 17-10975 Date Filed: 02/06/2018 Page: 1 of 3 
2

commit him to the Attorney General’s custody, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). 

On appeal, Cobble argues that the District Court erred in concluding that he was 

incompetent to proceed and in committing him for mental health treatment.1

 

Because no clear error exists here, we affirm. 

We review a district court’s determination of a defendant’s competency to 

proceed for clear error. United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1267 (11th Cir. 

2011). We give great deference to a district court’s competency finding and will 

not overturn it if it is fairly supported by the record. Id.

A district court, on its own motion or on a motion by the government or 

defense counsel, may order a hearing to determine whether a defendant is 

competent to proceed. 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). At such a hearing, the defendant 

“shall be represented by counsel and . . . afforded an opportunity to testify, to 

present evidence, to subpoena witnesses on his behalf, and to confront and crossexamine witnesses who appear at the hearing.” 18 U.S.C. § 4247(d); see also 18 

U.S.C. § 4241(c) (providing that a mental competency hearing “shall be conducted 

pursuant to the provisions of section 4247(d)”). 

 1 Even though Cobble’s counsel joined in the motion to have Cobble declared 

incompetent to proceed and to commit him to the Attorney General’s custody, Cobble has 

standing for this appeal because (1) he personally opposed the argument that he was 

incompetent, and (2) his commitment to the Attorney General’s custody and forced mental health 

treatment is a “concrete, particularized, and actual” injury directly resulting from the Court’s 

order, which a favorable decision from this Court would redress. Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 

568 U.S. 398, 409, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1147 (2013). 

Case: 17-10975 Date Filed: 02/06/2018 Page: 2 of 3 
3

A defendant is mentally incompetent to proceed if there is reasonable cause 

to believe that he has a mental disease or defect rendering him “unable to 

understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist 

properly in his defense.” Bradley, 644 F.3d at 1267 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a)). 

A district court has no authority to circumvent the statutory mandate that a person 

found mentally incompetent must be committed to the Attorney General for 

hospitalization. United States v. Donofrio, 896 F.2d 1301, 1302 (11th Cir. 1990); 

see also 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d) (providing that “the court shall commit the defendant 

to the custody of the Attorney General” (emphasis added)).

Cobble argues that the District Court erred in concluding that he was 

incompetent because he is neither delusional nor a danger to society, and he is not 

incapable of surviving.2

 Our review of all evidence in the record, however, fairly 

supports the District Court’s finding that Cobble was mentally incompetent to 

proceed. The District Court conducted the necessary hearing and made a 

reasonable determination regarding Cobble’s competence that was not clearly 

erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

 2 Cobble raises myriad other substantive and procedural arguments, such as a claim that 

he has declared war on the United States under his personal sovereignty. All of his arguments 

fail to demonstrate clear error in the District Court’s competency determination or show any 

other merit.

Case: 17-10975 Date Filed: 02/06/2018 Page: 3 of 3