# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 22 39

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Lui s Ol iv ares

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta - Rap id Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: May 19, 2 01 6
Fil ed : Dec em

be r 9, 2 01 6 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , COLLOTO N and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Lui s Oli va res was co nv ic te d aft er tri al of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e a co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 1( b) (1 )(A), 84 6, an d 85 1 (Co un t
1) ; po ss es si on of a fir earm du rin g a dr ug tra ffi ck in g crim e in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C.

§ 92 4( c)(1 )(A) (Co un t 2) ; be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm in vi ol at io n of 18

U

. S

. C. §§ 92 2( g) (1 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ) (Co un t 3) ; be in g a fu gi ti ve in po ss es si o n o f af

i r e a r m i n vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (2 ) an d 92 4( a)(2 ) (Co un t 4) ; po ss es si o n

wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ),

84 1( b) (1 )(A), a n d 8 5 1 ( Co un t 5) ; an d di st rib ut io n of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e in

vi ol at i o n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 1( b) (1 )(B)

, an d 85 1 (Co un t 9)

. Oli va res

ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of pr et ria l di sc ov ery m oti ons, de ci si on s co nc ern in g 1

hi s co m pe te nc y , an d th e ap pl ic at io n of a se nt en ci ng en ha nc e men t pu rs ua nt to 21

U.S.C. § 85 1. We h a v e juri sd ic ti on pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 12 91 an d, fin di ng no

erro r, we affi rm

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

In Ju ly 20 10

, la w en fo rcem en t in Rap id Ci ty, So ut h Dak ot a, rece iv ed a ti p th at

Lui s Oli va res was se ll in g m et ha m ph et am in e, co cai ne , an d m ari juan a in th e area

. The y be ga n a n in ve st ig at io n, an d in it ia te d su rv ei ll an ce on Oli va res ’ tra il er. Law

en fo rcem en t rece iv ed in fo rm at io n fro m a co n f i d en ti al in fo rm an t on Nov em be r 22

, 20 10

, th at Oli va res was tra ns po rti ng a la rg e qu an ti ty of m et ha m ph et am in e fro m

Den ve r, Co lo rad o, to Rap id Ci ty. Offi cers at te m pt ed to st op Oli va res ’ car on hi s way

ba ck to So ut h Dak ot a, bu t Oli va res refu s e d to pu ll ov er, le ad in g po li ce on a hi gh

sp eed ch as e, reac hi ng up to 95 m il es pe r ho ur i n bl iz zard co nd it io ns

. Oli va res

ev en tu al ly cras he d in to a fie ld ne ar Rap id Ci ty. Dur in g th e ch as e, so m eo ne to ss ed at

le as t on e pa ck ag e of m et ha m ph et am in e ou t of th e car win do w. By th e ti m e of fic ers

a r riv ed at th e sc en e, Oli va res ha d fle d on fo ot

, bu t two ot he rs , in cl u d i n g t h e

co nf id en ti al i nf

or m an t, were st il l in th e car. Eve nt ua ll y , of fic ers fo un d Oli va res

hi di ng in a ne arb y fie ld

. Offi cers al so se arch ed th e cras he d car, fin di ng on e pa ck ag e

of as so rte d gl as s pi pe s an d pla sti c ba gg ie s, two pa ck ag es of m et ha m ph et am in e hi dd en

in a sp eak er bo x, fo ur cel l ph on es , an d th ree la pt op co m pu te rs

. Ano th er pa ck ag e of

m et ha m ph et am in e was fou nd un de r a ro ck in th e fi el d wh ere t he cras h o ccu rred

.

The Hon or ab le Je ffre y L. Vik en , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1

th e Dis tri ct of S ou th Dako ta

.

-2

-In Ja nu ary 20 11

, th e go ve rn m en t fil ed a su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t ch arg in g

Oli va res an d 1 5 c o- de fen da nt s wit h m ul ti pl e fir earm an d dr ug -rel at ed of fen se s. In

J a n u a ry 20 12

, up on m ot io n of bo th pa rti es , th e di st ric t co ur t or de red th at Oli va r e s

un de rg o a ps y ch ia tri c or ps y ch ol og ic al ex am in at io n to be co nd uc te d p ur su an t t o 1 8

U.S.C. §§ 42 41 (b ) an d 42 47 (b ) fo r pu rp os es of de te rm in in g hi s co m pe te nc y to st an d

tri al

.

In Apr il 20 12

, th e di st ric t co ur t rece iv ed a rep or t reg ard in g Oli va res fro m th e

Fed er a l Dete nt io n Cen te r in Eng le woo d, Co lo rad o. The co ur t su bs eq ue nt ly he ld a

co m pe te nc y he ari ng whe re th e pa rti es st ip ul at ed to Oli va res ’ men ta l in co m pe te nc e

a n d h i s n e ed fo r fu rth er tre at m en t. The di st ric t co ur t acce pt ed th e st ip ul at io n an d

co m m it te d Oliv ares to a di ffer en t faci li ty to un de rg o a pe rio d of ho sp it al iz at io n and

tre at m en t no t t o ex ceed fo ur m on th s to de te rm in e whe th er th ere was a su bs ta nt ia l

pr ob ab il it y hi s co m

pe te nc y to st an d tri al co ul d be res to red pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C.

§ 4 24 1( d)

.

In Octo be r 20 12

, th e Fed eral Med ic al Cen te r at Bu tn er, Nor th Caro li na , is su ed

a cert ifi cat e of res t or at io n of co m pe te nc y to st an d tri al fo r Oli va res , wit h a

co rres po nd in g re p o r t

. On Nov em be r 21

, 20 12

, th e pa rti es st ip ul at ed to is su es

reg ard in g th e rep or t, an d bo th si de s ag ai n ag reed Oli va res ne ed ed to b e f ur th er

ev al ua te d. The di st ric t co ur t acce pt ed th e st ip ul at io n an d or d e r e d Oli va res to be

co m m it te d an d tre at ed at a th ird faci li ty. In Ju ly 20 13

, th e m ed ic al st aff at th e Fed eral

Med ic al Cen te r at Dev en s, Mas sa ch us et ts

, is su ed a rep or t whi ch co nc lu de d th at

Oli va res was no t su ffer in g fro m a m ajor m en ta l il ln es s th at wou ld pr ecl ud e hi m fro m

un de rs ta nd in g th e na tu re an d co ns eq ue nc es of t he pro ceed in gs ag ai ns t hi m or fro m

as si st in g p ro pe rly with hi s d efen se

.

On Se pt em

be r 20 , 20 13 , Ol iv ares ’ co un se l m ov ed th at a lo cal ps y ch ia tri st be

al lo wed to ev al ua te Oli va res ’ co m pe te nc y

. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n, an d

-3

-Oli va res was ex am in ed by Dr. St ep he n P. Man lo ve

. Dr. Man lo ve pr ep ared a rep or t

an d pr ov id ed it to th e co ur t on Feb ru ary 7, 20 14

. He co nc lu de d th at Oli va res was no t

su ffer in g fro m a m en ta l im pa irment, ha d a rat io na l ab il it y to co ns ul t wit h co un se l, an d

ha d a fact ua l and rat io na l un de rs ta nd in g of the pr oc eed in gs

. The di st ric t cou rt hel d

fu rth er co m

pe te nc y he ari ng s on Feb ru ary 27

, an d Mar ch 18

, 20 14

. On May 30

, 20 14

, it is su ed a co m

pr eh en si ve ord er co nc lu di ng Oli va res was c om pe te nt to st an d t ria l.

Thro ug ho ut th e co ur se of hi s co m m it m en t an d aft erwar ds

, O l iv ares fil ed

nu m ero us ci vi l la wsu it s in whi ch he m ad e a va rie ty of al le ga ti on s ag ai ns t th e

pr os ecu to r in hi s cas e an d nu m ero us la w en fo rcem en t of fic ers

. Oli va res al so tri ed to

fil e hu nd red s of p r o s e h an dwr it te n m ot io ns , m os t of whi ch were ret ur ne d to hi s

co un se l as no n- co m

pl ia nt an d no n- c on fo rm in g m ot io ns th at pr im ari ly de al t wit h

is su es un rel at ed to hi s cas e. Oli va res ’ ci vi l co m pl ai nt s were al l di sm is se d an d he was

ev en tu al ly ba rred fro m fil in g fu rth er ci vi l la w s ui ts in fed eral co ur t wit ho ut pr io r

pe rm is si on

.

O n Nov em

be r 4, 20 14

, th e go ve rn m en t fil ed an in fo rm at io n pu rs ua nt to 2 1

U.S.C. § 85 1 pr ov id in g no ti ce o f i t s i n te nt to se ek an en ha nc ed pe na lt y of li fe

im pr is on m en t up on co nv ic ti on ba se d on Oli va res ’ two “ pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r a fel on y

dr ug of fen se .” Oli va res fil ed a fo rm al ob jecti on to th e n ot ic e, as se rti ng su bs ta nt iv e

ch al le ng es to th e us e of th e pr io r co nv ic ti on s un de r th e st at ut e. On May 27

, 20 15

, th e

di st ric t cou rt con du ct ed a he ari ng on th e m at te r an d ov erru le d Oliv ares ’ ob jecti on s,

co nc lu di ng th at Oli va res ’ ch al le ng es were ba rred by th e fiv e-year st at ut e of

li m it at io ns an d t he co nv ic ti on s wer e th us va li d fo r pu rp os es of t he en ha nc em en t.

Tria l be ga n on Decem

be r 1, 20 14

. On th e th ird da y of th e te n- da y jury tri al an d

ou ts id e th e jury’ s pr es en ce, Oli va res in fo rm ed th e di st ric t co ur t th at he wan te d to

pr oc eed pr o se

. The co ur t warn ed Oli va res of th e da ng ers of se lf- rep res en ta ti on an d

ad vi se d hi m to al lo w co un se l to co nt in ue to rep res en t hi m

. Oli va res pe rs is te d in hi s

de ci si on to rep res en t hi m se lf, bu t as ke d if he co ul d ha ve hi s at to rn ey ba ck sh ou ld he

-4

-wan t th at

. The co ur t ap po in te d Oli va res ’ co un se l as st an db y co un se l, who wou ld be

av ai la bl e to ta ke ov er witn es s exa m in at io n or leg al arg um en t at any ti m e. The co ur t

to ld th e jury of Oli va res ’ de ci si on a n d ad vi se d th em th at it “ m us t no t affe ct [th ei r]

c o n s id erat io n an d de ci si on whe th er or no t he ’s gu il ty or no t gu il ty of th e of fen s e s

ch arg ed .”

Tria l co nt in ue d, wit h Oli va res co nd uc ti ng a po rti on of on e cro ss -ex am in at io n,

a fu ll cro ss -ex ami n a t i on of th e cas e ag en t, an d a fu ll di rect ex am in at io n. Defen se

co un se l co nd uc te d th e rem ai nd er of th e w i t n e s s ex am in at io ns an d ga ve th e cl os in g

arg um en t. The jury fo un d Oli va res gu il ty on al l co un ts

. On May 27

, 20 15

, Oli va res

was se nt en ced to li fe im

pr is on m en t on Co un ts 1 an d 5 to ru n co nc ur ren tl y to Co un ts
3, 4, an d 9, fo r whi ch he rece iv ed te n y ears ’ im pr is on m en t, each to ru n co ns ecu ti ve ly.

On Co un t 2, Oli va res was se nt en ced to fiv e y ears ’ im pr is on m en t co ns ecu ti ve to al l

ot he r co un ts

.

Oli va res ti m el y

ap pe al s.

II . Dis cus si on

Oli va res rai se s t hr ee i ss ue s o n a pp eal

. Fi rs t, h e ch al le ng es sev eral di sc ov ery

or de rs en te red by th e di st r i c t co ur t as well as th e go ve rn m en t’s fai lu re to pr es erv e

cert ai n el ect ro ni c di sc ov ery. Seco nd

, Oli va res arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve

su a sp on te reev al ua te d hi s co m pe te nc y to pr oc eed to tri al an d to rep res en t hi m se lf.

Th i rd

, Oli va res as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y ap pl ie d th e se nt en ci ng

en ha nc em en t pu rs ua nt to 21 U.S.C. § 85 1. The co ur t ad dr es se s th es e arg um en ts in

tu rn

.

-5

-A. Disc ov ery

Oli va res arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi m acce ss to di sc ov ery

an d th e go ve rn m en t im

pr o p e rly se le ct iv el y pr es erv ed ev id en ce by sa vi ng on ly

in cu lp at or y

m at eri al

.

Fi rs t, Oli va res ch al le ng es th e pr ot ect iv e or de r en te red by th e di st ric t co ur t. On

Ja nu ary 13

, 20 11

, an d ag ai n on Octo be r 7, 20 11

, du e to a ch a ng e of co un se l, th e

di st ric t co ur t or de red

, pu rs ua nt to st ip ul at io ns si gn ed by th e go ve rn m en t an d

Oli va res ’ de fen se at to rn ey s, th at “ Defen se co un se l sh al l ke ep th e [d is co ve ry ] it em s

fu rn is he d in hi s/ he r po ss es si on , an d th e m at eri al s sh al l no t be gi ve n to th e Defen da nt

or an y on e el se wit ho ut th e Co ur t’s pe rm is si on .” Thi s pr ot ect iv e or de r, w hi ch is

“ st an da rd ” in cri m in al cas es in th e di st ric t, perm it te d Oliv ares to read th e di sc ov ery

m at eri al s “ bu t on ly in th e pr es en ce of defen se co un se l, the de fen se in ve st ig at or or a

de fen se ex pe rt.”

Ord ers go ve rn in g di sc ov ery are “ co m m it te d to th e so un d di sc ret io n of th e

di st ric t co ur t an d a n e rro r in ad m in is te rin g th e di sc ov ery ru le s is rev ers ib le on ly o n

a sh owi ng th at th e erro r was pr ejud ic ia l to th e su bs ta n ti al rig ht s of th e de fen da nt .”

Uni te d St at es v. Pel to n, 5 7 8 F

. 2 d 7 0 1

, 70 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 ). “ Nor m al ly a pa rty is

bo un d by hi s st ip ul at io ns as a st ip ul at io n .

. . is ak in to a co nt ract .” Uni te d St at es v.

Mor al es , 68 4 F.3 d 74 9, 75 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Rat hb or ne

Lan d Co

. v. Asc en t En e rg y , In c., 61 0 F.3 d 24 9, 26 2 (5 th Ci r. 20 10 )). Oli va res , th ro ug h co un se l, twi ce si gn ed t h e st ip ul at io n whi ch pe rm it te d hi m to rev ie w th e

di sc ov ery on ly in th e pr es en ce of co un se l or hi s ag en t. The re is no sh owi ng th at th e

st ip ul at ed ag reem en t was co m pe ll ed or in vo lu nt ari ly m ad e, th us th e di st ric t co ur t di d

no t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n i ss ui ng th e p ro te ct iv e o rd er ag reed to by t he pa rti es . See

id

. (u ph ol di ng th e st ip u l at ed di sc ov ery ag reem en t whe re it “ was free ly en te red an d

no t co m pe ll ed ”).

-6

-Seco nd

, Oli va res co nt en ds th at th e co ur t’s refu sa l to pe rm it hi m di rect acce ss

to th e 1,2 21 di sc ov e r y f

i le s su bs ta nt ia ll y pr ejud ic ed hi s ab il it y to rep res en t hi m se lf

at tri al

, pa rti cu la rly gi ve n hi s li m it ed acce ss to a co m pu te r to as si st hi s rev ie w of th e

m at eri al s.

At se ve ral po in ts pr io r to an d du rin g tri al

, Oli va res pe ti ti on ed th e di st ric t co ur t

fo r in crea se d acce ss to di sc ov ery m at eri al s to ai d in pr ep arat io n of his cas e fo r tri al

. On Feb ru ary 20

, 20 14

, Oli va res , th ro ug h co un se l, m ov ed fo r a c c es s to th e po li ce

rep or ts pr ov id ed to hi s co un se l as pa rt of th e di sc ov ery in th e cas e. The di st ric t co ur t

or al ly d en i e d t h e mo ti on , b ut it s reas on in g is no t av ai la bl e in th e reco rd

. Aga in at 2

th e pr et ria l co nf

eren ce, Oli va res ’ co un se l di sc us se d hi s co nc ern th at be cau se Oli va res

was be in g he ld in so li ta ry co nf i n e ment

, hi s acce ss to hi s cl ie nt was li m it ed to a

m ax im um of on e ho u r a n d 1 5 m in ut es pe r da y of vi si ta ti on an d no ph on e cal ls

. Co nc ern ed ab ou t co un se l’s effe ct iv e as si st an ce in th e week be fo re tri al , t he di st ric t

co ur t co nf

irmed wit h th e U .S. Mar sh al s th at co un se l wou ld be ab le to free ly m eet

wit h hi s cl ie nt ou ts id e of th e li m it ed sc he du le

. Dur in g t r i a l

, Oli va res rai se d hi s

co nc ern ab ou t in su ffi ci en t acce ss to di sc ov ery m at eri al s, sp eci fic al ly to co n d u ct

In te rn et res earc h. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d Oli va res p e r mi s s i o n to acce ss th e

In te rn et th ro ug h h is co un se l an ho ur pri or to th e st art of t ria l t he fol lo win g d ay

.

W he n Oli va res el ec t e d t o pr oc eed at le as t in pa rt pr o se , he ha d “ a rig ht of

acce s s to ad eq ua te la w li br ari es or ad eq ua te as si st an ce fro m pe rs on s tra in ed in th e

la w.” Uni te d St at es v. Kin d, 19 4 F.3 d 90 0, 90 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Kno x, 95 0 F.2 d 51 6, 51 9 (8 th Cir . 19 91 )). To pr ov e th at he was de pr iv ed

Not ab ly, at th e ti m e Oli va res as ke d to pe rs on al ly rev ie w th e po li ce rep or ts

, he 2

was no t ap pe ari ng pr o se

. O n c e O l i v a res in vo ke d hi s rig ht to rep res en t hi m se lf,

ne it he r Oli v a r e s n o r hi s co un se l m ov ed to va cat e th e st ip ul at ed pr ot ect iv e or de r. Thu s, th e di st ric t co ur t ha d no op po rtu ni ty to “ co ns id er th e pr ejud ic e th at im po si ti on of th e pr ot ect iv e or de r ha d up on [Oli va r e s ] d u r i n g tri al as a pr o se de fen da nt .” App el la nt ’s Br. at 24

.

-7

-of th is rig ht

, Oli va res “ m us t ‘dem on st rat e th at th e al le ge d sh or tc om in gs

. . . hi nd ered

hi s effo rts to pu rs u e a le ga l cl ai m .’ ” Id

. (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Lewis v.

Cas ey , 51 8 U.S. 34 3, 35 1 (1 99 6) )

. O li va res rep res en te d hi m se lf in te rm it te nt ly at

tri al

— co nd uc ti ng a pa rti al cro ss an d di rect ex am in at io n of on e wit ne ss , hi s ex

gi rlf rie nd Prec io us Bart le tt , a nd th e fu ll cro ss ex am in at io n o f th e cas e ag en t, Dere k

Hil l— al w ay s wit h th e su bs ta nt ia l as si st an ce of st an db y co un se l. The di st ric t co ur t

se ve ral ti m es at tri al pe rm it te d Oli va res ad di ti on al ti m e to co nf er wit h co un se l an d to

o rg an iz e ev id en ce an d ex hi bi ts

, an d al lo wed st an db y co un se l to ta ke ov er th e

qu es ti on in g of Ms

. Bart le tt

. The co ur t fu rth er de m an de d th at th e jail pr ov id e co un se l

wit h un li m it ed acce ss to hi s cl ie nt i n t h e w e e k l ead in g up to tri al an d m ad e

arra ng em en ts fo r Oli va res to rev ie w In te rn et m at eri al s wit h st an db y c o u n s el in th e

co ur tro om . It i s cl ear t he di st ric t co ur t care fu ll y pr ot ect ed Oli va res ’ ri gh t to acce ss

ad eq ua te res ou rces to pre pa re h is own de fen se

.

Fi na ll y , Oli va res arg ue s th e go v ern m en t se le ct iv el y pr es erv ed el ect ro ni c

di sc ov ery an d fai le d t o s a v e e xc ul pa to ry m at eri al

, cau si ng hi m un fai r pr ejud ic e at

tri al

. In di s c o v e r y , t he go ve rn m en t pr od uc ed se ve ral in cri m in at in g jail ph on e cal ls

Oli va res m ad e to co -d efen da nt s. Oli va res su bs eq ue nt ly req ue st ed co p i e s o f al l jail
ph on e cal ls an d vi si ts in vo lv in g Oli va res an d hi s co -d efen da nt s, an d th e go ve rn m en t

res po nd ed th at i t h a d n o t reco rd ed or pr es erv ed su ch ev id en ce. Oli va res al so

req ue st ed al l of th e te xt m es sa ge s ex ch an ge d be twee n Age nt Hil l an d hi s co nf id en ti al

in fo rm an t fro m th e ni gh t of Oli va res ’ arre st

. The go ve rn m en t was un ab le to pr od uc e

th e te xt m es sa ge s be cau se it fai le d to do wnl oa d or sa ve th em

. The go ve rn m en t rel ie d

on Oli va res ’ in cri m in at in g jail ph on e cal ls an d Age nt Hil l’s te st im on y reg ard in g th e

co nt en t o f th e te xt m es sa ge s at tri al

.

Oli va res rai se d th e go ve rn m en t’s fai lu re to pr od uc e th e ja il ph on e cal ls an d

vi si ts an d th e ag en t’s te xt m es sa ge s wit h th e mag i s t r a t e jud ge an d wit h th e di st ric t

co ur t. The di st ric t co u r t de ni ed Oli va res ’ m ot io n to co m pe l, ho ld in g th at “ [t]he

-8

-go ve rn m en t do e s n o t h av e a du ty to di sc lo se it em s it do es no t po ss es s.” (q uo ti ng

Uni te d S ta te s v . Sarra s, 5 75 F.3d 11 91 , 12 15 (11 th Cir . 20 09 )).

Giv en th at th e go ve rn m en t’s st or ag e an d ret en ti o n s y st em s by de si gn do no t

pr es erv e th e req ue st ed it em s, Oli va res he re do es no t arg ue th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in

refu si ng to co m

pe l di sc lo su re. Rat he r, he arg ue s fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al th at hi s

du e pr oc es s rig ht s were vi ol at ed du e to la w en fo rcem en t’s ba d fai th fai lu r e t o

pr es erv e po te nt ia ll y ex cu lp at or y ev id en ce. See Ariz on a v. You ng bl oo d, 48 8 U.S. 51

, 58 (1 98 8) (“ fai lu re to pr es erv e po te nt ia ll y us efu l ev id en ce do es no t co ns ti tu te a de ni al

of du e pr oc es s of law” unl es s th e de fen da nt can sh ow la w en fo rcem en t act ed in ba d

fai th ). Eve n as su m in g th at th e de le te d jail ph on e cal ls

, jail vi si t vi de os , an d ag en t te xt

m es sa ge s ha d ap pa ren t ex cu lp at o r y va lu e, se e Uni te d St at es v. W eb st er, 62 5 F.3 d

43 9, 44 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), th ere is no ev id en ce th at th e go ve rn m en t act ed in ba d fai th

whe n it fai le d to pr es erv e th e ev id en ce, s ee id. (no ev id en ce of bad fai th whe re “ th e

no rm al pr oc ed ur e in de st ro y in g ev id en ce was fo ll owe d” ); Uni te d St at es v. Hou st on , 54 8 F.3 d 11 51

, 11 55 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) ( b a d f a i t h was no t sh own whe re th e arre st in g

of fic er “ di d no t a t t e mp t t o do wnl oa d vi de o of th e tra ffi c st op ” as th ere was no

ev id en ce reg ard in g th e of fic er’s ob li ga ti on to pr es erv e th e vi de o)

. W e reco gn iz e

Oli va res ’ co nc ern : The no n- in cu lp at or y jail ph on e cal ls an d th e ag en t’s te xt m es sa ge s

may ( or m ay no t) ha ve be en rel ev an t to hi s de fen se

. W it h th e si m pl ic it y an d

effi ci en cy of m od ern el ect ro ni c st or ag e cap aci ty, on e co ul d i m ag in e a p ol ic y whe re

in cu lp at or y m at eri al s an d po te nt ia ll y rel ev an t m at eri al s crea te d or m ad e av ai la bl e in

pr ox im it y to th e in cu lp at or y m at eri al s are eas il y sa ve d fo r rev ie w. B u t O l i v ares ’

fai lu re to rai se th is is su e be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t an d to pr es en t an y ev id en ce of ba d

fai th is di sp os it iv e to hi s Yo un gb lo od arg um en t.

B. Competen cy

Oli va res as se rts on ap pe al t h at on ce hi s tri al st art ed , t he di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld

ha ve su a sp on te reev al ua te d hi s c o mp e t en cy to pr oc eed

. See 18 U.S.C. § 42 41 (a)

-9

-(“ At an y ti m e aft er th e co m m en cem en t of a pr os ecu ti on fo r an of fen se an d pr io r to th e

se nt en ci ng ,” th e co ur t sh al l gr an t a m ot io n fro m ei th er pa r t y “fo r a h eari ng to

de te rm in e th e m en ta l co m pe te nc y of th e de fen da nt ” or “ sh al l or de r su ch a he ari ng on

it s own m ot io n, if t h e r e is reas on ab le cau se to be li ev e th at th e de fen da nt m ay ” be

in co m pe te nt ). Tria l be ga n on Decem be r 1, 20 14

. In an or de r da te d May 3 0, 2 0 1 4

, th e di st r i c t co ur t fo un d Oli va res was co m pe te nt to pr oc eed to tri al —a fin di ng

Oli va res do es no t ch al le ng e on ap pe al

. At th e co m pe te nc y he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t

he ard te st im on y fro m two p s yc h ol og is ts an d on e ps y ch ia tri st

, no ne of who m

co nc lu de d t ha t Ol iv ares was m en ta ll y in co m pe te nt . Oliv ares as se rts , ho wev er, t ha t

th e do ct or s’ op in io ns , an d th us th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s, were ba se d on th e pr em is e

th at Oli va res was fe ig ni ng m en ta l il ln es s an d th at , o nc e he was fou nd co m pe te nt to

st an d tri al

, he wou ld in fact be ha ve in a co m pe te nt m an ne r. Bu t Oliv ares ’ be ha vi or

di d no t ch an ge fo ll owi ng hi s co m pe te nc y d e t e r mi n a ti on or on ce tri al be ga n. Thu s,

Oli va res co nt en ds

, th e ve ry pr em is e up on whi ch th e fin di ng of co m pe te nc y was ba se d

was fau l t y, an d th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve rev is it ed th e m at te r of co m pe te nc y to

pr oc eed

.

Oli va res m is read s t he di st ric t co ur t’s co m pe te nc y or de r, fo cu si ng on on ly a

po rti on of it s an al y si s. The di st ric t co ur t di d no te th at on e do ct or ex pr es se d th e vi ew

th at Oli va res sh owe d so m e si gn s of m al in ge rin g an d ex ag ge rat io n, an d th at Oli va res

c o u l d effe ct iv el y pa rti ci pa te in hi s de fen se “ if he ch oo se s to do so .” Bu t ne it he r

do ct or “ ob se rv ed Oli va res sh owi ng an y sym pt om s co ns is te nt wit h m en ta l i ll ne ss .” 3

Bo th do ct or s co nc lu de d th at Oli va res “ un de rs to od th e na tu re an d co ns eq ue nc es of th e

pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t hi m ,” an d th at he ha d th e ab il it y to r a t i o n a l l y a s si st in hi s own

de fen se

. See 18 U

. S

. C

. § 42 41 (d ) (co ur t m us t de te rm in e whe th er de fen da nt is

“ pr es en tl y su ffer in g fro m a m en ta l d i s eas e or de fect ren de rin g hi m m en ta ll y

in co m pe te nt to th e ex te nt th at he is un ab le to un de rs ta nd th e na tu re an d co ns eq ue nc es

Thre e do ct or s te st ifi ed in pe rs on or by vi de o, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r 3

rel ie s l arg el y

on th e o pi ni on s ex pr es se d b y on ly two o f th e d oc to rs

.

-1 0-of th e pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t hi m or to as si st pr op erl y in hi s de fen se ”). Nowh ere do es

th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de th at it s co m pe te nc y fin di ng is ba se d on th e ex pe ct at io n th at

Oli va res ’ be ha vi or wou ld ch an ge

. In de ed

, th e di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d th e

d o c t o r s’ ob se rv at io ns of Oli va res ’ pa ran oi d be li efs

, hi s al le ge d de lu si on s, an d h i s

pe rs is te nt in cl in at io n to m ak e fal se ac c u s a t i o ns ag ai ns t ot he rs in vo lv ed in hi s cas e.

Bu t th e co ur t co nc lu de d th at de sp it e th es e be ha vi or s, Oli va res was ab le to un de rs ta nd

th e na tu re an d co ns eq ue nc es of th e pr oc eed in gs ag ai ns t hi m , an d to as si st in hi s own

de fen se

. The d is tri ct co ur t al so qu es ti on ed Oli va res at t he co m pe te nc y he ari ng an d

fo un d he un de rs to od th e co ur t’s qu es ti on s an d ha d a “ r a ti on al un de rs ta nd in g of th e

pr oc eed in gs an d a ge ne ral un de rs ta nd in g o f th e le ga l p ro ces s.”

Mo reo ve r, on e do ct or ’s op in io n th at Oli va res ’ be ha vi or m ay ch an ge do es no t

de m on st rat e th at Oli va res ’ co m pe te nc y ha d ch an ge d be twee n th e May 20 14

co m pe te nc y fin di ng an d th e Decem be r 20 14 tri al

. See Ja m es v. Io wa, 10 0 F.3 d 58 6,

58 9– 90 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (“ Ja m es ’s as se rti on , ba se d on th e ps y ch ia tri st s’ rep or ts

, th at

hi s m en ta l st at e was su bjec t to ch an ge do es no t de m on st rat e th at hi s m en ta l st at e ha d

in fact ch an ge d be twee n hi s fir st ex am in at io n an d hi s tri al .”). Alt ho ug h we reco gn iz e

th at a “ de fen da nt ’s co m

pe te nc y is no t st at ic an d m ay ch an ge ov er ev en a sh or t pe rio d

of ti m e,” Uni te d St at es v. Gha ne , 59 3 F.3 d 77 5, 77 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ), th ere was no

ev id en ce th at Oli va res ’ co m pe te nc y ha d ch an ge d du rin g th e ei gh t-mont h pe rio d. In

fact

, Oli va res in si st s th at hi s be ha vi or di d no t ch an ge be twee n th e t i me of th e

co m pe te nc y he ari ng an d th e ti m e of tri al

, whi ch su gg es ts th ere was no ch an ge in hi s

co m pe te nc y du rin g th at pe rio d. See Dro pe v. Mi ss ou ri, 42 0 U.S. 16 2, 18 1 (1 97 5)
(“ Eve n whe n a de fen da nt is co m pe te nt at th e co m

m en cem en t of hi s tri al

, a tri al co ur t

m us t al way s be al ert to ci rcu m st an ces su gg es ti ng a ch an ge th at wou ld ren de r th e

accu se d un ab le to m eet th e st an da rd s of co m pe te n c e t o st an d tri al .”). W it h no

di sc ern ib le di ffer en ce in Oli va res ’ pr es en ta ti on , th e di st ric t c o u r t h ad no reas on to

rev is it th e is su e o f co m

pe te nc y , and di d n ot ab us e it s d is cret io n i n n ot do in g s o.

-1 1-Oli va res al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t e r r e d in al lo win g hi m to rep res en t

hi m se lf du rin g po rti on s o f t he tri al

, th us vi ol at in g hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to

co un se l. The Si xt h Am en dm en t no t on ly g ua ran te es a c r i mi n a l de fen da nt th e rig ht

to as si st an ce of co un se l bu t al so th e rig ht to rep res en t hi ms e l f o r h e rs el f. Uni te d

St at es v. Ben so n, 68 6 F.3 d 49 8, 50 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ). Befo re al lo win g a de fen da nt to

pr oc eed pr o se , a di st ric t co ur t m us t en su re th at th e de fen da nt ’s waiv er of co un se l is

kn owi ng an d vo lu nt ary. Uni te d St at es v. Turn e r , 64 4 F.3 d 71 3, 72 0– 21 (8 th Ci r.

20 11 ). Oli va res arg ue s th e waiv er of co un se l co ll oq uy co nd uc te d by th e di st ric t co ur t

“ was no t su ffi ci en t gi ve n [h is ] pa st hi st or y of m en ta l he al th is su e[s ]. ” Oli va res do es

no t id en ti fy an y th in g la ck in g in th e co ll oq uy th a t w o u l d r en de r hi s de ci si on no t

kn owi ng or vo lu nt ary. See Fare tt a v. Cal ifo rn ia

, 42 2 U.S. 80 6, 83 5 (1 97 5) (h ol di ng

t h a t a de fen da nt “ sh ou ld be m ad e aware of th e da ng ers an d di sa dv an ta ge s o f s e l f

rep res en ta ti on , so th at th e reco rd wil l est ab li sh th at ‘he kn ows wha t he is do in g and

hi s ch oi ce is m ad e wit h ey es op en .’ ” (q uo ti ng Ada m s v. U.S

. e x r e l

. M cCa nn , 31 7

U.S. 26 9, 27 9 (19 42 ))). In st ead , he r ei te rat es hi s argu m en t th at hi s beh av io r at tri al

s h o w e d h e was no t fei gn in g m en ta l il ln es s an d, th us , he was no t co m pe te nt t o

rep res en t h im se lf.

“ Befo re al lo win g a de fen da nt to waiv e h is rig ht to co un se l, a co ur t m us t be

sa ti sf ie d th at th e de fen da nt is co m pe te nt to do so .” Uni te d St at es v. W as hi ng to n, 59 6

F.3 d 92 6, 9 4 0 ( 8 t h C ir. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Crawf or d, 48 7 F.3 d 11 01

, 11 0 5 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 07 )). The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s m ad e cl ear th at “ th e st an da rd fo r

m en ta l co m

pe te nc e to rep res en t on e’s se lf is hi gh er th an th e st an da rd of m en ta l fit ne ss

to st an d tri al .” Id

. at 94 1 (d es cri bi ng In di an a v. Edwar ds

, 5 5 4 U

. S

. 1 64

, 17 1– 78
(2 00 8) ). Oli va res arg ue s th at th e il l o g i c al an d irr at io na l st at em en ts

, fil in gs , an d

qu es ti on s h e m ad e p rio r to an d d ur in g h is pr o se re pr es en ta ti on sh ou ld ha ve ale rte d

th e di st ric t co ur t th at he was no t co m pe te nt to rep res en t h i ms e l f an d an ot he r

co m pe te nc y he ari ng was req ui red

. “ Gen eral ly, a co ur t ne ed no t su a sp on te or de r an

ev al ua ti on to de te r mi ne a de fen da nt ’s co m pe te nc e to waiv e co un se l; ” a he ari ng is

“ ne ces sa ry on ly whe n a co ur t ha s reas on to do ub t th e de fen da nt ’s co m pe te nc e.” Id

.

-1 2-at 94 0 (q uo ti ng Crawf or d, 48 7 F.3 d at 11 05 ). “ A di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on no t to or de r

a co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on or ho ld a co m pe te nc y he ari ng is rev ie wed fo r ab us e of

di sc ret io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Turn er, 6 44 F.3d 71 3, 7 23 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

In th is cas e, we fi n d n o ab us e of di sc ret io n in th e di st ric t co ur t no t or de rin g

an oth er co m

pe te nc y ev al ua

ti on or ho ld in g an ot he r co m pe te nc y he ar ing w he n O liv ar es

so ug ht to rep res en t hi m se lf at tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed O l i v a r e s o v er th e

co ur se of fo ur y ears , co nd uc te d a th or ou gh ev id en ti ary he ar i n g w h ere si x

wit ness es —t hr ee of who m were m ed ic al pr of es si on al s— te st ifi ed

, an d ha d th e be ne fit

of m ul ti pl e writ te n rep or ts reg ard in g Oli v a r e s ’ men ta l he al th

. The co ur t al so

co m m un ic at ed di rect ly wit h Oli va res du rin g th e co ur se of th e t ria l, an d ob se rv ed

fir st ha nd hi s co nd uc t in th e co ur tro om

. At th e pr et ria l co nf eren ce an d at se nt en ci ng , th e co ur t rei te rat ed it s co nc lu si on th at Oli va res was “ pr es en tly co m pe te nt, ” de sc rib in g

hi m as a “ hi gh ly in te ll ig en t in di vi du al ” who was “ ve ry sk il le d at m an ip ul at in g”

ps y ch ia tri st s, th e co ur t, an d juro rs

. Und er th es e ci rcu m st an ces , we co nc lu de th at th e

d i s t r ic t co ur t di d no t vi ol at e Oli va res ’ Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to co un se l b y

pe rm it ti ng hi m

to pro ceed pro se a t t ria l.

C. Sente nci ng Enha ncement

On Nov em

be r 4, 20 14

, th e go ve rn m en t fil ed an i n fo rm at io n pu rs ua nt to 21

U.S. C

. § 8 5 1 pr ov id in g no ti ce of it s in te nt to se ek an en ha nc ed pe na lt y of li fe

im pr is on m en t up on co nv ic ti on ba se d on Oli va res ’ two “ pr io r co nv ic ti on s fo r a fel on y

dr ug of fen se .” See 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( b) (1 )(A), 85 1( a)(1 ). The st at ut e im po se s a fiv ey ear s ta tu te of li m it at io ns fo r ch al le ng in g an y pr io r co nv ic ti on th at th e go ve rn m en t

rel ie s on fo r pu rp os es of th is en ha nc em en t

. 2 1 U

. S

. C. § 85 1( e). The di st ric t co ur t

fo un d t h a t O l i va res ’ two pr io r co nv ic ti on s be cam e fin al in Ja nu ary 20 06 an d Apr il

20 06 res pe ct iv el y

. Neit h er pa rty co nt es ts th is fin di ng

. Thu s, un de r th e st at ut e,

Oli va res ha d un ti l Ja nu ary an d A p r i l 20 11 to ch al le ng e th e va li di ty of th os e pr io r

co nv ic ti on s. Oli va res as se rts th at he was im pr op erl y de ni ed th e op po rtu ni ty to do so

.

-1 3-Oli va res was ch arg ed by cri m in al co m p l a i n t o n Decem

be r 7, 20 10

. On

Decem be r 21

, 20 10

, he was in di ct ed

, an d on Ja nu ary 19

, 2 0 1 1

, t he gr an d jury

ret ur ne d a su pe rs ed in g in di ct m en t. The go ve rn m en t di d no t fil e th e no ti ce of int en t

to se ek an en ha nc ed pe na lt y un ti l Nov em be r 4, 2 0 1 4

— a l m os t fo ur y ears aft er

Oli va res was or ig in al ly in di ct ed

, an d th ree an d a ha lf y ears aft er th e § 85 1 st at ut e of

li m it at io ns ha d ru n. Had th e no ti ce be en fil ed at th e ti m e of th e i n d i c t ment or th e

supe rs ed in g in di ct m en t, Oli va res po in ts ou t, he wou ld no t ha ve be en tim e- ba rr ed fr om

ch al le ng in g th e co nv ic ti on s. Oli va res arg ue s th at th e on ly reas on ab le ex pl an at io n fo r

th e de la y is th at th e go ve rn m en t he ld of f fil in g th e no ti ce un ti l su ch ti m e th at he was

n o lo ng er pe rm it te d, un de r th e st at ut e, to ch al le ng e th e pr io r co nv ic ti on s. H e a l s o

as se rts th at th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns sh ou ld ha ve be en to ll ed du rin g an y pe rio d i n

whi ch he was i nc om

pe te nt to pro ceed

.

The di st ric t co ur t co nc l u d e d th at un de r th e pl ai n la ng ua ge of th e st at ut e, th e

in fo rm at io n was ti m el y fil ed

. See 21 U.S.C. § 85 1( a)(1 ) (to in crea se pu ni sh m en t by

reas on of on e or m or e pr io r co nv ic t i o ns , th e Uni te d St at es at to rn ey m us t fil e an

in fo rm at io n wit h th e co ur t “ be fo re tri al ”). As Oli va res po in ts ou t, th e de la y in fil in g

th e § 85 1 no ti ce in hi s cas e was si gn ifi can t. Howev er, pu rs ua nt to th e pl ai n la ng ua ge

of th e st at ut e, th e no ti ce was ti m el y fil ed

. The in fo rm at io n was fil ed N ov em be r 4,

20 14

, an d tri al be ga n on Decem be r 1, 20 14

. W it ho ut an y e v i d e n ce to su pp or t th e

al le ga ti on , we are un wil li ng to at tri bu te ba d fai th to t h e g o v ern m en t in it s de ci si on

reg ard in g wh en to fil e th e n ot ic e.

Fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al

, Oli va res al so as se rts th at he rel ie d to hi s de tri m en t

on a rep res en ta ti on fro m an Ass is ta nt U.S. Att or ne y as si gn ed to th e cas e th at no § 85 1

no ti ce wou ld be fil ed

. Bu t th ere is no th in g in th e reco rd t o s u p po rt th is as se rti on

. Eve n if su ch a rep res en ta ti on ha d be en m ad e, Oli va res m ak es no cl ai m th at th e

-1 4-rep res en ta ti on was m ad e be fo re ei th er Ja nu ary or Apr il 20 11

, t h e de ad li ne s fo r

ch al le ng in g t he va li di ty of th e p rio r co nv ic ti on s. 4

As t o Ol iv ares ’ co nc ern th at he ha d bee n in co m pe te nt du rin g a po rti on of th e

fiv e-year win do w fo r ch al le ng in g th e pr io r co nv ic ti on s, th ere is in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

to su pp or t su ch a fin di ng

. Oli va res di d no t fil e a m ot io n fo r a co m pe te nc y ev al ua ti on

un ti l Ja nu ary 4, 20 12 —ei gh t m on th s aft er th e la st de ad li ne ex pi r e d

, an d

ap pr ox im at el y on e y ear aft e r h e was in di ct ed

. Afte r ex te ns iv e te st in g, m ul ti pl e

ev al ua ti on s, an d an ev id en ti ary he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t d e t e r mi n ed he was

co m pe te nt to st an d tri al

. To th e ex te nt Oli va res arg ue s th at he was in co m pe te nt pr io r

to Ja nu ary 4, 20 12

, he pr es en te d no ev id en ce to su pp or t su ch a fin di ng

. W e ne ed no t

de ci de , t he refo re, whe th er th e st at ut e of li m i t a t i o n s i n § 85 1 co ul d be to ll ed du rin g

a p eri od of i nc om

pe te nc y

. 5

II I. Co ncl us io n

The jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

Acco rd in g to Oli va res ’ br ie f, th e pu rp or te d co n v e rs at io n wit h th e Ass is ta nt 4

U.S. Att or n e y a p p e a rs to ha ve oc cu rred on or aft er Sep te m be r 26

, 20 11

, whe n th e

co ur t gran te d Oliv ares ’ m ot io n for new cou ns el an d cur ren t cou ns el was ap po in te d.

Fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al

, Oli va res al so arg ue s th at § 85 1 is im pe rm is si bl y 5

su bjec t to di sc riminat or y en fo rce men t b y th e go ve rn m en t, an d th us is “ vo id fo r

va gu en es s.” W e de cl in e to ad dr es s th is arg um en t fo r th e fir st ti m e on ap pe al du e to

a l a c k of a reco rd on th e is su e an d br ie fin g whi ch is in su ffi ci en tl y de ve lo pe d. See
Uni te d St at es v. Dard en , 70 F.3 d 15 07

, 15 17 n.3 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ) (d ecl in in g to ad dr es s is su es whi ch “ were m en ti on ed in pa s s i n g in th e ap pe ll an ts ’ br ie fs ”). W e no te

, ho wev er, th at we ha ve p r e v i o u s ly co nc lu de d th is st at ut e of li m it at io ns do es no t
vi ol at e du e pr oc es s or eq ua l pr ot ect io n. See Uni te d St at es v. Pri or , 10 7 F.3 d 65 4, 66 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (fi ve -y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns no t a vi ol at io n of du e pr oc es s or eq ua l

pr ot ect io n be cau se “ [f]iv e y ears is a r e a s o n a b l e am ou nt of ti m e to req ui re co ur t
do cu m en ts to be pr es erv ed wit ho ut th e req ui rem en t be co m in g ov erl y bu rd en so m e”).

-1 5-