T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary23,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, N o. 06- 4199 v. ( D . U t ah) BE NJ AM I N AR CH UL E T A,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 5 - CR- 6 7 6 - TC)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e T A C H A , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , P O R F IL IO and AN DE RS ON , C irc u it Judg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.-2-

D efe ndantand appe l l antB enj ami n A r chul et a appe al s an or derdet erm i ni ng th a t th e in v o lu n tar ya d m in istra tio n o f a n tip sy c h o tic m e d ica tio n is n e c e ss a ryto r e n d e rh i m c o mp e t e n tt o s t a n d tr i a l . W e a ffi r m.

BA CKGROUND I n Sept ember1998, A r chul et a w as char ged w i th thr eat eni ng the l i fe of a fede r al di s tr i ctcourtj udge i n U t ah. H e w as s entt o a fa ci l i tyi n Spr i ngfi el d, M iss o u ri, fo r a c o m p e ten c ye v a lu a tio n . A f ter u n d e rg o in g tre a tm e n t, A rc h u leta w as found compet entt o s t and tr i al w hi l e on medi cat i on. T her eaf t er , t he governm entand A r chul et a ent er ed i nt o a s t i pul at i on thatl ed t o a fi ndi ng of not g u iltyb yre a so n o f

in sa n ity . A rc h u leta w a s a c c o rd in g lyc o m m itt e d to a h o sp ital. A rc h u leta w a s s u b se q u e n tlyre lea se d f ro m th e h o sp ital w ith sp e c ific condi t i ons of r el eas e, pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 4246 . A ft erA r chul et a vi ol at ed the condi t i ons of r el eas e, the di s tr i ctcourti m pos ed s tr i ct ercondi t i ons and r el eas ed A r chul et a t o a hal fw ayhous e. W hen A r chul et a aga i n vi ol at ed hi s condi t i ons of r el eas e, the courtr evoked hi s r el eas e and r emanded hi m t o the cus t odyof the B u r e a u o f

P r i s o n s fo rc o n t i n u e d h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n a tt h e S p r i n g fi e l d fa c i l i ty. In Ju n e 2 0 0 4 , the c o u rt a g a in o rd e re d A rc h u leta re lea se d o n c e rta in condi t i ons . I n February2005, the courtt erm i nat ed s upervi s i on of A r chul et a and c o n sid e re d th e c a se c lo se d . W ith in se v e n m o n th s o f th e ter m in a tio n o f

h is su p e rv ise d re lea se , the U n ited S tate s M a rsh a l S e rv ice a n d th e B u re a u o f A lco h o l,-3-

T o b a c c o a n d F ire a rm s (“ B A T F ” ) le a rn e d th a t A rc h u leta h a d a ttem p ted to pur chas e a f

i r earm fr om a l ocal paw n s hop i n Sal tL ake Ci ty , U t ah. I n doi ng s o, A rchul et a had l i ed ab ou this pri or m ental health co m m i t m ent on a fo rm used as a backgr ound chec k. Pur s uantt o 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 4) , A r chul et a i s a r es tr i ct ed p e r s o n wh o i s n o tp e r mi t t e d t o p o s s e s s o ra t t e mp tt o p o s s e s s a fi r e a r m. T he governm entchar ged hi m w i th pr ovi di ng fal s e i nform at i on i n the acqui s i t i on of a f

i r earm . W hen A r chul et a made hi s i ni t i al appea r ance on the new fire a rm s c h a rg e , the c o u rt o rd e re d h im to u n d e rg o a p sy c h iatric e v a lu a tio n to det erm i ne hi s compet encyt o s t and tr i al and hi s m ent al s t at e atthe t i m e of the offe ns e. T he court - appoi nt ed for ens i c ps y chi atr i s tconcl uded thatA r chul et a w as notcompet entt o s t and tr i al , butw as unabl e t o det erm i ne hi s m ent al s t at e atthe t i m e of the offens e. A m agi s tr at e j udge hel d a compet encyhear i ng i n M ar ch 2006 and det erm i ned thatA r chul et a w as notcompet entt o s t and tr i al and or der ed thathe be re m a n d e d to th e c u s to d yo f th e B u re a u o f

P ri s o n s fo r r e s to ra tio n o f c o m p e te n c y . T h e m a g istra te ju d g e a lso o rd e re d a n e v a lu a tio n o f A rc h u leta ’s m e n tal h e a lth st atus atthe ti m e of the offense an d an asses sm ent of w hetherA rchul et a w as a dangert o hi m s el f orother s . L at erthats ame day , the di s tr i ctcourtor der ed a sp e c ific p sy c h iatric e v a lu a tio n o f w h e th e r A rc h u leta sh o u ld b e in v o lu n tar ily m e d ica ted d u rin g th e c o u rt-o rd e re d c o m p e ten c yre sto ra tio n c o m m itm e n t.-4-

D r . J eff r eyW at abe c onduct ed the eva l uat i on on i nvol unt arym edi cat i on and pr epar ed a r eport . I n pr epar i ng hi s r eport , D r . W at abe r el i ed upon a numberof i t ems, i ncl udi ng an i nt ervi ew w i th A r chul et a, r ecor ds and/ orr eport s fr om the D avi s C ountyj ai l , t he B A T F and the Spr i ngfi el d fac i l i ty , a for ens i c eva l uat i on pr epar ed byJ as m i ne A . T ehr ani , Ph. D , a r i s k as s es s m entr evi ew r eportpr epar ed b yE d u ard o U ll o a, M . D . , a m en tal h ea lth ev alua ti o n p rep are d b yK athyR eim h err, L. C. S. W . , a n d fo r e n s i c r e p o r t s p r e p a r e d b yLe a Ann Pr e s t o n , Ph . D an d Rob e r tL. D en n ey , P sy . D . , A . B . P . P . D r. W atab e e v alua ted th e p o ssibil ityo f in v o lun tary m edi cat i on underthe four - partanal y s i s of Sel l v. U ni t ed St at es , 539 U . S. 166 ( 2003) . T hat four- partanaly si s i nv olves the fo l l ow i ng i nq uiry : (1) “a cou rtm ust fin d th a t i mpor tantgo vernm ental i nter est s ar e atst ake”; ( 2) “the co urtm ust c o n c lu d e th a t in v o lu n tar ym e d ica tio n w ill s igni f i cant l y f ur ther. . . sta te in ter e sts

. . . [i n thatthe] admi ni s tr at i on of the drugs i s s ubs t ant i al l yl i kel yt o r enderthe d e fe n d a n t co m p e ten t to sta n d trial . . . [ a n d th a t] a d m in istra tio n o f th e d ru g s is s ubs t ant i al l yunl i kel yt o have s i de effec t s thatw i l l i nt er fer e s i gni fi cant l yw i th t he d efen d an t’ s ab il ityto as sistco u n sel i n co n d u cti n g a tri al de fe n se” ; ( 3 ) “the co u rt m ustcon cl ud e t hat i nv olunt arym edicat i on i s necessary to f u rth e r th o se in ter e sts

. . . [i n that ] anyal t ernat i ve, l es s i ntrus i ve tr eatm ent s ar e unl i kel yt o achi eve s ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r es ul t s ”; and ( 4) “the courtm us tconcl ude that adm i nis trat i on of the drugs i s m e d ica lly ap p rop ria te , i . e. , i n the pat i ent’ s best-5-

m edi cal i nt er es ti n l i ghtof hi s m edi cal condi t i on. ” Sel l , 539 U . S. at180- 81 ; s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. M orr i s on, 415 F. 3d 1180, 1181 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( di s cus s i ng the S ell fa ctors). D r . W at abe di agnos ed A r chul et a as havi ng “Schi zophr eni a, par anoi d type. ” R ep o rtat 11 , R . V o l. III . T h e sc h izop h ren ia diag n o sis w as “ b ase d o n M r. A rc h u leta ’s d ifficu ltyw ith d e lu sio n s a n d h a llu c in a tio n s th a t h a v e c a u se d h im s i gni fi canti nt erper s onal , occupa t i onal , and l egal di ffi cul t i es ” w hi ch have “per s i s t ed fora numberof y ear s and do notappea rt o be r el at ed t o m ood di s or der s , m edi cal condi t i ons , ordrug abus e. ” I d. T he “pa r anoi d type” qua l i fi er w as “bas ed on the pr om i nence of M r . A r chul et a’ s del us i ons and abs ence of s i gni fi cantdi s or gani zed orcat at oni c beha vi or s . ” I d. A p p ly in g th e fo u r S e ll fa c to rs, D r. W a tab e c o n c lu d e d th a t A rc h u leta sh o u ld under go i nvol unt arym edi cat i on t o r es t or e hi s compet encyt o s t and tr i al . O n the fi r s tfac t or , w hetheri m por t antgovernm ent al i nt er es t s ar e ats t ake, D r . W at abe s t at ed thathe w as unabl e t o “addr es s w i th r eas onabl e medi cal cert ai ntyw hether i m por t antgovernm ent al i nt er es t s w er e ats t ake . . . beca us e thi s t opi c l i es out s i de the ar ea of

[hi s ] expert i s e. ” I d. at11- 12 . T h e d o c to r d id , h o w e v e r, sta te “ w ith re a so n a b le m e d ica l ce rta in ty ” th a t A rc h u leta “ d o e s n o t m e e t th e c riter ia fo r c iv il c o m m itm e n t to a n in stitu tio n fo r th e m e n tallyill ” b e c a u se h e “ d o e s n o t cu rre n tly pos e a s ubs t ant i al dangerof phy s i cal i nj uryt o hi m s el f . . . orother s . ” I d. at12 .-6-

W ith re g a rd to th e se c o n d fa c to r, w h e th e r a d m in istra tio n o f d ru g s w ill restore A rch u let a to c o m p eten cyto stan d tr ial an d w h ethe r suc h d rug s are su b sta n tiallylik e lyto h a v e sid e e ffe c ts, D r. W a tab e c o n c lu d e d “ w ith a re a so n a b le m e d ica l ce rta in tyth a t ad m in istra tio n o f a n tip sy c h o tic m e d ica tio n is s u b sta n tially l i kel yt o r enderM r . A r chul et a compet entt o s t and tr i al . ” I d. T he bas i s forthat concl us i on w as : ( 1) A r chul et a’ s pas texper i ence w i th ant i ps y chot i c medi cat i on re v e a ls th a t h e w a s p re v io u slyre sto re d to c o m p e ten c yo n tw o o c c a sio n s, o n c e in 1998 and aga i n i n 1999; ( 2) he has a “w el l - document ed hi s t oryof r es ol ut i on of his psy cho t i c sym ptom s as a r esul tof tr eat m ent w i th an t i psy cho t i c m edicat i on s” s uch as Pr ol i xi n i n 1998 and R i s per dal i n 2003; and ( 3) ther e i s “no i ndi cat i on of an yco g n it ive d efici t th at w o u ld p rev en t r esto rati o n to co m p eten ce o n ce M r. A r chul et a’ s ps y chot i c s ym pt om s ar e tr eat ed. ” I d. at12- 13 . D r . W at abe a l s o concl uded “w i th r eas onabl e medi cal cert ai ntythat tr eatm entw i th ant i ps y chot i c medi cat i ons i s s ubs t ant i al l yunl i kel yt o have s i de effects that w i l l i nter fere si gn i fi cantl yw i th M r. A rchul et a’s abil i tyt o assi st couns el i n conduct i ng a tr i al defe ns e. ” I d. at13 . T hi s concl us i on w as bas ed upon th e fa c t th a t A rc h u leta h a s “ n o h isto ryo f sid e e ffe c ts f

ro m th e a n tip sy c h o tic m edi cat i ons ( Pr ol i xi n, R i s per dal ) pr evi ous l yus ed t o tr eathi s ps y chos i s , ” the fa ct thathi s m edi cal r ecor ds documenthi s w i l l i ngnes s t o t ake medi cat i ons and thathe has neverr equi r ed l ar ge dos es of m edi cat i on t o adequa t el ytr eathi s ps y chos i s and re s to re h im to c o m p e te n c y . I d.-7-

W ith re sp e c t to th e th ird fa c to r, w h e th e r a d e q u a te a ltern a tiv e tre a tm e n ts ex ist , D r. W atab e o p ined “w ith rea so n ab le m ed ical certaintythat inv o lun tary m edi cat i on i s nece s s aryt o r es t or e M r . A r chul et a t o compet ency ” bec aus e ( 1)

“ [ t]h e re a re n o a ltern a tiv e , les s in tru siv e tre a tm e n ts lik e lyto a c h iev e su b sta n tially the s ame r es ul t s as ant i ps y chot i c medi cat i ons ”; and ( 2) ther e i s no l es s i ntrus i ve m eans foradmi ni s t er i ng drugs gi ven thatA r chul et a “i ns i s t s he has no m ent al i l l nes s ” and that“he w i l l r efus e al l ant i ps y chot i c medi cat i ons , even i n the fa ce of cont empt of court . ” I d. at14. R e g a rd in g th e fo u rth fa c to r, w h e th e r th e a d m in istra tio n o f a n tip sy c h o tic drugs i s m edi cal l yappr opr i at e, D r . W at abe opi ned “w i th r eas onabl e medi cal cert ai nty ” thatA r chul et a s houl d be tr eat ed w i th ant i ps y chot i c medi cat i ons beca us e i ti s the tr eatm entof choi ce fors chi zophr eni a and that“al l other tr e a t me n ti n t e r v e n t i o n s s u c h a s p s y c h o th e r a p ya r e mi n i ma l l ye ffe c t i v e . ” I d . He fu rth er c o n clud ed that, w h il e su ch tr ea tm en t m igh t exa ce rba te A rch u let a’s di abet es , thats i de effec tcoul d l i kel ybe medi cal l ycontr ol l ed. I n J une 2006, the courtnot ed thatthe i nvol unt arym edi cat i on eval uat i on had bee n compl et ed and s chedul ed a he ar i ng on t he ques t i on of w hethert o or der su ch inv o lun tarym ed icati o n . T h e h ea ri n g too k p lace in A u g u st 20 0 6 . T h e c o u rt admi t t ed as evi dence a l ett erfr om A r chul et a, D r . W at abe’ s r eport , and the for ens i c eva l uat i on byJ as m i ne Tehr ani . A ddi t i onal l y , D r . W at abe t es t i fi ed att he hear i ng.-8-

In a d d iti o n to c o n firm in g h is fin d in g s a n d c o n c lu sio n s c o n tain e d in h is r e p o r t , Dr . Wa t a b e t e s t i fi e d a b o u tth e fo u r - p a r ta n a l y s i s r e q u i r e d b yS e l l . He tes tifie d th a t h e d id n o t b e liev e th a t th e c riter ia fo r c iv il co m m itm e n t ap p lied to A rc h u leta b e c a u se h e w a s “ re lativ e lysta b le in ter m s o f d a n g e ro u sn e ss ” to h im se lf o r o th e rs. T r. o f

H r’g a t 1 9 -2 0 , R . V o l. II. T h e d o c to r c o n c lu d e d , h o w e v e r, th a t, al though he di d noteval uat e A r chul et a’ s l ong- t erm r i s k of vi ol ence , gi ven A r chul et a’ s hi s t oryof as s aul t s , drug and al cohol abus e, par anoi a r egar di ng the g o v e rn m e n t, th re a ts to g o v e rn m e n t o fficia ls, a n d h is c o n d u c t in a ttem p tin g to pur chas e a w eapon, he bel i eved A r chul et a’ s l ong- t erm r i s k of as s aul t i ve conduc t w a s “ m o d e ra te to h ig h .” Id . at 2 1 . R e g a rd in g th e lik e lih o o d th a t an tip sy c h o tic m edi cat i on w oul d r enderA r chul et a compet entt o s t and tr i al , D r . W at abe e s t i m at ed thatw i th m edi cat i on A r chul et a’ s “ps y chot i c s ym pt om s w oul d begi n r es ol vi ng w i thi n a fe w w eeks , and pr obabl yw i thi n thr ee t o s i x m onths . ” I d. at23. D r . W at abe a l s o t es t i fi ed abouti m pr ovement s i n m edi cat i ons , s uch thatt he new erones had fe w ers i de effec t s . Fur ther , he not ed thatA r chul et a had t aken var i ous m edi cat i ons w i th no s i de effec t s and that , i n fac t , A r chul et a had made “a n ex p li citd en ial o f sid e e ffec ts. ” Id . at 25 . A s to a lt ern ati v e treatm en ts, D r. W at abe t es t i fi ed ther e w er e no otherm eans t o r es t or e compet ency , and, as t o the m e d ica l ap p ro p ria ten e ss o f m e d ica tio n , the d o c to r sta ted th a t “a n tip sy c h o tic m edi cat i on i s t he s t andar d of ca r e forps y chos i s , and i n M r . A r chul et a’ s cas e, s chi zophr eni a, i ti s t he onl yeffect i ve tr eatm entfori t . ” I d. at28.-9-

T he di s tr i ctcourtt her eaf t erm ade i t s fi ndi ngs of fa ctand conc l us i ons of law . It fo u n d “ b ya p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v id e n c e th a t [ A rc h u leta ] is in c o m p e ten t to sta n d trial c o n sis ten t w ith th e re a so n s a n d a n a ly sis se t fo rth in D r. T e h ra n i’s re p o rt.” O rd e r a t 4 , R . V o l. I. T h e c o u rt th e n tu rn e d to a n a n a ly sis of w hetheri nvol unt arym edi cat i on t o r es t or e A r chul et a’ s compet encyw as requi red. F oll ow i ng ou r i nst ruct i on s i n M orr i son, the d i stri ctcou rtfi rs t c o n sid e re d w h e th e r in v o lu n tar ym e d ica tio n c o u ld b e ju stified u n d e r th e a n a ly sis of W as hi ngt on v. H arper , 494 U . S. 210 ( 1990) . In H a rp e r, th e “ C o u rt . . . h e ld thati ti s perm i s s i bl e t o admi ni s t erant i ps y chot i c drugs i nvol unt ar i l yt o a pr i s on i nm at e w i th a s er i ous m ent al i l l nes s ‘ i f the i nm at e i s danger ous t o hi m s el f or other s and the tr eatm enti s i n the i nm at e’ s m edi cal i nt er es t . ’ ” M orr i s on, 415 F. 3d at1182 (qu o ti n g H arp er, 49 4 U . S . at 22 7 ). T h e c o u rtreli ed u p o n D r. W atab e’s r eportand t es t i m onyt o agr ee w i th the governm entthatA r chul et a “doe s not p re se n tlyp o se a su b sta n tial risk o f h a rm to h im se lf

o r o th e rs, n o r is h is h e a lth g rav elyat ri sk w ith o u t m ed icati o n . ” O rde r at 4, R . V o l. I. T he courtthen cons i der ed w hetheri nvol unt arym edi cat i on w as j us t i fi ed underSel l . A ppl y i ng t he fourSel l fac t or s , the di s tr i ctcour tfound “bycl earand c o n v in c in g e v id e n c e ” th a t in v o lu n tar ym e d ica tio n sh o u ld b e o rd e re d w h ile A rc h u le ta w a s h o s p ita liz e d fo r c o m p e te n c yre s to ra tio n . I d. W i th r egar d t o the fir s t fa c to r, t h e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th e re w e re “ im p o rt a n t g o v e rn m e n ta l in te re s ts . . . in b rin g in g [ A rc h u leta ] to trial,” id . at 5 , an d th a t “‘ [ t]h e G o v e rn m e n t’s in ter e st in-10-

bri ng i ng t o tr i al an indi vidual accused of a seri ou s cr i m e i s i m po rt ant’ becau se ‘th e G o v e rn m e n t se e k s to p ro tec t th ro u g h a p p lica tio n o f th e c rim in a l law th e b a sic hum an nee d fors ecur i ty . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng Sel l , 539 U . S. at180- 81 ). A s partof thi s fac t or , t he C our ti n Sel l not ed thatcour t s “mustcons i dert he fa c ts o f th e in d iv id u a l ca se in e v a lu a tin g th e G o v e rn m e n t’s in ter e st in pr os ecut i on. Speci al ci r cumst ance s m ayl es s en the i m por t ance of thati nt er es t . ” Sel l , 539 U . S. at180 . O ne s uch s peci al ci r cumst ance i s “the pos s i bi l i tythatthe defe ndanthas al r eadybeen c onfi ned fora s i gni fi cantamount of t i m e. ” I d. ; s ee al s o U ni t ed St at es v. B r adl ey , 417 F. 3d 1107, 1116 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( “[W ] hen the a m o u n t o f

tim e th e d e fe n d a n t is c o n fin e d p e n d in g d e ter m in a tio n o f c o m p e ten c yis i n par i tyw i th the expe ct ed s ent ence i n the cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng, the G overnm ent m a yn o lo n g e r b e a b le to c laim a n im p o rta n t in ter e st in th e p ro se c u tio n .”). In th is c a s e , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt n o te d th a t th e s ta tu te A rc h u le ta a lle g e d ly v io la te d , 18 U . S. C . § 924( a) ( 6) , carr i ed a t en- y earm axi m um s ent ence . Fur ther , even though the s ent enci ng r ange unde rt he U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng C om m i s s i on, G ui del i nes M anual ( “U SSG ”) w as pr obabl yfr om s i x t o tw el ve mont hs or , atw or s t , fr om tw e lv e to six tee n m o n th s, th e c o u rt c o m p a re d A rc h u leta ’s tim e sp e n t alre a d yin cus t odyt o the t en- y ears t atut orym axi m um . T hus , al though A r chul et a had s pentE ven i f the pr opercompar i s on w as betw een the expe ct ed s ent ence under 1 the G ui del i nes and t i m e s penti n cus t ody , t he di s tr i ctcourtnot ed that“a r eas onabl e s ent ence w oul d be i n exce s s of pr edi ct ed s ent enci ng gui del i nes t hat m ayap p lyto the d efen d an t. ” O rde r at 5, R . V o l. I. -11- a p p ro x im a telya y e a r in c u sto d y , the c o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th a t ti m e w a s n o t in par i tyw i th t he expe ct ed s ent ence . 1 T ur ni ng t o t he s econd a nd t hi r d Sel l fac t or s , t he di s tr i ctcourtconcl uded th a t in v o lu n tar ym e d ica tio n o f A rc h u leta w o u ld re su lt i n th e re sto ra tio n o f h is compet encyw i thouts i de effec t s thatw oul d i nt er fer e w i th hi s abi l i tyt o as s i s tt r i al couns el i n hi s defe ns e. T he courtal s o concl uded thatno ot herl es s i ntrus i ve m e a n s w o u ld a c h iev e su b sta n tiallyth e sa m e re su lts. F in a lly , ap p ly in g th e fo u rth Sel l fac t or , the courtconcl uded thatadmi ni s tr at i on of ant i ps y chot i c medi cat i on w as m edi cal l yappr opr i at e and i n the bes ti nt er es tof A r chul et a. A r chul et a appe al s , ar gui ng t he courterr ed i n i t s det erm i nat i on that i nv olunt arym edicat i on w as w arr anted. H e argues that the g ov ernm ent’ s i nter est i n pr os ecut i ng hi m i s l es s ened byt he nega t i ve effec t s he w i l l s uffe rbeca us e of lo n g -te rm fo rc e d m e d ica tio n a n d b e c a u se h e h a s a lre a d yse rv e d tim e c o m p a ra b le to w h a t h e w o u ld b e s e n te n c e d to s e rv e u n d e r t h e G u id e lin e s .-12- DI S CU S S I ON B eca us e the Supr eme C our ti n Sel l s peci fi ed “ne i thera s t andar d of pr oof fo r t h e S e ll fa c to rs n o r a s ta n d a rd o f a p p e lla te re v ie w , B r adl ey , 417 F. 3d at1113 , w e hav e st at ed the app l i cable s t and ards as foll ow s:

‘ W hetherthe G overnm ent ’ s as s er t ed i nt er es ti s i m por t anti s a l egal ques t i on. ’ . . . W e w oul d expand the par amet er s of the l egal ques t i on t o i ncl ude w hetheri nvol unt aryadmi ni s tr at i on of ant i ps y chot i c drugs ‘is n e c e ss a rysig n ifica n tlyto f u rth e r im p o rta n t g o v e rn m e n tal tria lr el at ed i nt er es t s . I n otherw or ds , ‘ [h] as t he G overnm ent , i n l i ghtof the effi cac y , the s i de effec t s , t he pos s i bl e al t ernat i ves , and the m e d ica l ap p ro p ria ten e ss o f a p a rticu lar c o u rse o f a n tip sy c h o tic tre a tm e n t, sh o w n a n e e d fo r th a t trea tm e n t su fficie n tlyim p o rta n t to o v e rc o m e th e in d iv id u a l’ s p ro te c te d in te re s t in re f u s in g it? ’ . . . [T]he r emai ni ng Sel l fac t or s depend upon factual fi ndi ngs and ought t o be pr oved bythe governm entbycl earand convi nci ng e v i d e n c e . . . . We r e v i e w c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w de novo and fi ndi ngs of fa ct fo r clear e rror. I d. at1113- 14 ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. G om es , 387 F. 3d 157, 160 ( 2d C i r . 2004) , and Sel l , 539 U . S. at179, 183 ) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. E vans , 404 F. 3d 227, 236 ( 4th C i r . 2005) . W e have car eful l yr evi ew ed the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s opi ni on, and w e conc l ude thati t s anal y s i s of the fourSel l fac t or s i s t hor ough and corr ect . I t s l egal concl us i on thatthe governm ent al i nt er es ti n pr os ecut i ng A r chul et a i s s tr ong and undi m i ni s hed byanys peci al ci r cumst ance i s corr ect . W hi l e A r chul et a ar gues t hat w e s houl d cons i dera pot ent i al G ui del i ne s ent ence w hen compar i ng t i m e al r eady sp en t i n cu stod yw ith A rch u let a’s li k elysen tenc e, w e a g ree w ith the d istri ct co u rt th a t th e a p p ro p ria te c o m p a riso n is to th e sta tu to rym a x im u m , ten y e a rs in th is-13-

cas e. See B r adl ey , 417 F. 3d at1117 . T he court ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs r el at i ng t o the o th e r S e ll fa c to rs a re n o t cle a rlye rro n e o u s. W e th u s a g re e th a t fo rc ib le m edi cat i on t o r es t or e A r chul et a’ s compet encyi s appr opr i at e. CO NC L US I ON F o rth e fo r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s o r d e ri s AF F I RMED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge