FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 27, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 30 2 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 :0 1- cr-0 60 80 -FAM- 1 USA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff

- App el le e, ve rs us SAINGELUS SAINGERARD, a.k .a. Ted Wall ace, a.k .a. Tedo va le s R em ll ie n, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st27 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, WILSON andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Sai ng el us Sai ng erar d app eal s t he rev oc at io n o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas epu rs ua ntto 18 U.S.C. § 3 58 3( e)(3 ). Sai ng erar d a rg ue s t ha t the di st ric t co urt ju dg e

who pre si de d o ve r hi s re vo cat io n h eari ng su a s po nt e sh ou ldha ve he lda he ari ng to de te rm in e h is co m

pe te nc y , eve n t ho ug h ano th er d is tri ctco urt ju dg e h adfou nd Sai ng erar d c om

pe te ntto st an d t ria l fo r th e u nd erl y in g s ub st an ti ve off en se th at res ul te d i n t he rev oc at io n. W e rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s fa il ur e to su a s po nt e or de r a co m

pe te nc y he ari ng . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Will ia ms , 46 8 F .2d81 9, 8 20 (5 th Cir . 19 72 ) (p er cu ria m). Sect io n 4 24 1( a) o f Tit le 18 of t he Uni te d S ta te s 1 Co de pro vi de s t ha t: At an y ti m e aft er the co m

m en cem en t o f a p ro se cu ti onforanoff en se an d p rio r to th e se nt en ci ng of t he de fen da nt , or a t an y ti m e aft er the co m m en cem en t o f pr ob at io n o r supe rv is edrel eas e an d p rio r to th e co m pl et io n o f th e se nt en ce, the de fen dantor t he att orne y forth e Gov ern m en t m ay

fil e a m ot io n 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 t he de fen da nt . The co urt s ha ll gra ntth e m ot io n, o r sh al l o rd er s uc h ahe ari ng on it s o wn m ot io n, i f th ere i s re as on ab le cau se to be li ev e th atth e d efen da ntm ay pre se nt ly be su ffer in g fr om a m en ta l d is eas e o r de fectren de rin g h im m en ta ll y in co m pe te ntto th e ex te ntth athe is un ab le to un de rs ta ndth e n atur e an d c on se qu en ces of th e p ro ceed in gs ag ai ns t h im or t o a ss is t p ro pe rly in h is de fen se . The st an da rdforde te rm in in g c om pe te nc e to st an d t ria l i s wh ethe r th e de fen da nt“ ha s s uf

fic ie ntpre se ntab il it y

to co ns ul t wi th hi s l awy er wi th a In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e 1 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of busine ss on September 30, 1981. 2reas on ab le de gr ee o f rat io na l u nd ers ta nd in g— an d wh ethe r he ha s a r at io na l as

well as f actua l u nd ers ta nd in g o f th e p ro ceed in gs ag ai ns t h im .” Medin a v . Si ng le ta ry , 59 F.3d10 95 , 11 06 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ) (quo ti ng Dus ky v. Un it ed Stat es , 36 2 U.S. 4 02 , 40 2, 8 0 S . Ct. 7 88 , 78 9 (1 96 0) ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . A tria l co urt m us t su a s po nt econ du cta co m

pe te nc y he ari ng when th e in fo rm at io n kn own to th e co urt i s “ su ffi ci en t t o ra is e a b on a fi de do ub t re ga rd in g t he de fen da nt ’s com

pe te nc e.” Ti ll er

v. Esp os it o , 91 1 F .2d57 5, 5 76 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . The d efen da nt ’s com pe te nc y is anon go in g i nqui ry , and“ th e de fen da ntm

us t b e co m

pe te ntat a ll st ag es of tria l,” i nc lu di ng sen te nc in g. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Ra hi m , 43 1 F .3d75 3, 7 59 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m). W e fo cu s o n thr ee fa ct or s i n d eci di ng whet he r a tria l co urt h as vi ol at eda de fen da nt ’s rig ht s b y

fai li ng su a s

po nt eto ho lda co m

pe te nc y he ari ng : (1 ) ev id en ce o f th e d efen da nt ’s irra ti on al be ha vi or , (2) th e d efen dant ’s dem ean orat tri al , and(3) pri or

m ed ic al op in io ns reg ard in g t he de fen da nt ’s com pe te nc e to st an d tri al . Medin a, 59 F.3dat 1 10 6 (c it at io n o m it te d) . Thi s an al y si s fo cu se s o n wh at th e tr ia l co urt d idinli gh t o f wha t i t kne w at t he ti m e o f th e tr ia l o r he ari ng . Til le r , 91 1 F .2dat 5 76 (ci ta ti on om it te d) . “ Bec au se leg al co m pe te nc y is pri m ari ly a fu nc ti on of d efen da nt ’s rol e inass is ti ng co un se l i n c on du ct in g t he de fen se , th e de fen da nt ’s att orne y

is inth e b es t p os it io n t o d et erm in e whe th er the de fen dant ’s

3co m

pe te nc y is su sp ect .” W

at ts v. Si ng le ta ry , 87 F.3d12 82 , 12 88 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (fi nd in g t ha t co un se l’s fa il ur e to rai se th e is su e o f co m pe te nc y is ev id en ce tha t co m pe te nc y was n otindo ub t). W e h av e ap pl ie d t he same du e-p ro ces s s ta nd ard s fo r co m pe te nc y at a pr ob at io n- rev oc at io n h eari ng as p ro vi de d a t a c riminal tri al . Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Gra y , 42 1 F .2d31 6, 3 17 –1 8 (5 th Cir . 19 70 ). Becaus e p ro ba ti on an d s up erv is ed rel eas e are co nc ep tu al ly ide nt ic al , cou rts tre atrev oc at io ns th e sa m e, whe th er the y in vo lv e p ro ba ti on or s up erv is edrel eas e. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Fr az ie r , 26 F.3d 11 0, 1 13 –1 4 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 4) . As an in it ia l m at te r, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ap pe ar t o m ak e ex pl ic it fin di ng s o n wh ethe r a co m pe te nc y he ari ng was n eces sa ry , andSai ng erar d’s co un se l d idno t re qu es t a c om pe te nc y rev ie w durin g t he rev oc at io n h eari ng . Bec au se th e is su e is whet he r th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e su a s po nt e ord ereda co m pe te nc y he ari ng , su chco urt fi nd in gs were n otne ces sa ry . The fi rs t Medin a fact or is ev id en ce o f irrat io na l b eh av io r. Medin a , 59 F.3dat 1 10 6. Th e d is tri ct co urt was pre se nt edwith i nf orm at io n t ha t Sa in ge rardvi ol at edth e co nd it io ns of h is supe rv is edrel eas e b y

ass au lt in g aco rrec ti on s o ffi cer, al le ge dl y be cau se he was afra idof b ei ng pl acedinge ne ral po pu la ti on . Howev er, the co urt al so kn ew th at , de sp it e th is irr at io na l b eh av io r, Sai ng erar d h adbe enfou ndleg al ly com pe te ntto 4as si stinhi s d efen se an d s ta ndtri al forth e sa m e co nduc t o n t he un de rlyin g

subs ta nt iv e o ffen se invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 11 (c). An ot he r pi ece o f po te nt ia l ev id en ce o f irrat io na l b eh av io r is th atSai ng erar d’s co un se l s ta te d t ha t, i n t he ir co nv ers at io ns , Sai ng erar d b el ie ve d h e was at r is k b ecau se he was ago ve rn m en t in fo rm er. The go ve rn m en t, m or eo ve r, po in te d o utto th e d is tri ctco urt tha t Sai ng erar d h ad“ sp itwate r in th e fac e o f hi s d efen se att orne y . He’ s t hr own fece s - -.” D.E. 52 at 4 . Howev er, n otev enbi zarr e, vo la ti le , or i rrat io na l b eh av io r can be equa te d c on cl us iv el y

with m en ta l i nc om

pe te nc e to ass is t i n t he de fen da nt ’s own de fen se . Medin a , 59 F.3dat 1 10 7. Fi na ll y , Sai ng erar d’s co un se l re pe at ed ly stat ed th athe ha d n ev er h ada m ean in gf ul co nv ers at io n wi th hi s cl ie nt . Se e W at ts , 87 F.3 d a t 1 28 8. Ho wev er, co un se l p res en te d n o s pe ci fic s b ey on d S ai ng erar d’s b el ie f th athe was ago ve rn m en t i nf orm an t, n or

di d c ou ns el pre se ntne w evi de nc e, in th e fo rm of t es ti m on y

or r ep orts , in di cat in g t ha t Sa in ge rardwas n o l on ge r co m pe te nt . The s eco nd Medin a fact oris th e d efen dant ’s dem ean or . Medin a , 59 F.3dat 11 06 . Sain ge rardga ve arg uabl y no ns en si cal an swe rs to th e que st io ns th e co urt as ke d h im . Sain ge rardtal ke d abo utho w hi s l ife was i n d an ge r, an d h ow h is wife fle d t o the Bah am as . Whe n a sk edby the co urt wh athe th ou gh t s ho ul d b e d on e, Sai ng erar d’s ra m

bl in g re sp on se was, “ I kn ow you a re the Ju dg e. Andth ey trying to be jud gi ng m e fo r so m ethi ng I di dn ’t do , andth e Ju dg e is jud gi ng m e.” D.E. 52 5at13 . Furt he r, Sai ng erar d’s o ve ral l d em ean or at t he he ari ng was c al m . The th ird Medin a fact or

is pri or m ed ic al op in io ns reg ard in g t he de fen da nt 's co m pe te nc e to st an d t ria l. Medin a , 59 F.3d11 06 . There were o nl y a few b rie f m en ti on s o f th e p rio r ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on s o f Sai ng erar d. Defe ns e co un se l po in te d o utth at“ Dr. Hol m es who saw h im at t he reque stof t he Publ ic Defen de r’s of fic e fo un d h im

to be anAxi s 1 , tru ly psycho ti c.” D.E. 52 at 8 . Defen se co un se l fu rth er s ta te d tha t “ [Sai ng erar d’s] st ory ha s b eento ta ll y

co ns is te ntfro m

20 01 up un ti l the pre se ntba se d o n my co nv ers at io ns with p rev io us att orne y s i nv ol ve d wi th Mr. Sa in ge rardas we ll as Dr. Ho lm es ’ rep ort.” Id . Howev er, d efen se co un se l no te d t ha t the Bu reauof P ris on s h adm ad e “ so m e o bs erv at io ns th atth ey be li ev e th athe ’s po ss ib ly m al in ge rin g.” Id. Defen se co un se l al so no te d t o t he di st ric t co urt tha t h e u nd ers to od“ Ju dg e Ma rti ne z’s ru li ng on th e co m pe te nc y he ari ng ,” bu t tha t h e b el ie ve d t ha t “ Dr. Hol m es ’ rep ort i s m or e co ns is te nt .” Id . at 1 1. Th us , th e co urt kne w th atco un se l u nd ers to odth e p rev io us co m pe te nc y rul in g b utth at co un se l tho ug htth aton e o f th e ear li er p ie ces of e vi de nc e, Dr. Hol m es ’s di ag no si s, was m or e rel iabl e. Su ch arg um en t i s n otne w evi de nc e th ata bo na fi de do ub t ex is ts th atSai ng erar d i s n o l on ge r co m pe te nt . Becau se th e d is tri ctco urt atth e rev oc at io n h eari ng ha d kno wled ge th atSai ng erar d h adearl ie r be enfou nd co m pe te ntto st an d tria l o n c harg es th atin vo lv edth e sa m e b iz arre be ha vi or , and 6Sai ng erar d p res en te d n o n ew ev id en ce atth e rev oc at io n h eari ng to warran t a su a

sp on te gr an t o f a n ew co m pe te nc y he ari ng , we affi rm

th e rev oc at io n o f Sai ng erar d’s s up erv is edrel eas e.

AFFIRMED.

7