IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50076

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CLAYTON ERIC CLAFLIN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:14-CR-359-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and JONES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Clayton Eric Claflin, who faces a charge of being a felon in possession of 

a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), challenges the district court’s 

order that he be forcibly medicated to restore his competency to stand trial. He 

argues that the district court failed to properly analyze the factors outlined in 

Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003). For the first time on appeal, he

argues that three special circumstances undermine the Government’s interest 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50076 Document: 00513763845 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2016
No. 16-50076

2

in prosecuting him: (1) if he were not forced to take medication, he would likely

be confined in a mental hospital which would address the need for public safety 

and thus attenuate the seriousness of the offense and the Government’s

interest in prosecuting him; (2) the length of his pretrial detention lessens the 

importance of the Government’s interest in prosecuting him because, by his 

estimation, he will have already served more than the likely guideline sentence 

that would be imposed if he were convicted; and (3) if medicated, he would be 

unable to present his defense that he believed that his conduct was not 

unlawful because it was directed by law enforcement, and he was acting in his 

role as a government informant.

We are not persuaded that the district court committed plain error in 

this regard. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 140 (2009). First, 

Claflin’s “potential for future confinement affects, but does not totally 

undermine,” the governmental interest in prosecution. Sell, 539 U.S. at 180. 

His evaluating doctors opined that he was not likely to be a danger to himself 

or others, which makes it unlikely that he would be subject to civil 

commitment. Second, in terms of his likely sentence, there is a strong potential 

for an upward variance given Claflin’s stated intentions of killing a federal 

agent as well as personnel at a hospital where he had been a patient. Even if 

it were determined that Claflin had already served his likely sentence, such a 

circumstance does not defeat the Government’s interest in prosecuting him. 

See id. There is a strong interest in protecting the public from the potential 

harmful conduct of Claflin as this is not the first time that he has threatened 

physical harm and death to others. See United States v. Palmer, 507 F.3d 300, 

303-05 (5th Cir. 2007). Finally, nothing about being restored to competency to 

stand trial would prevent Claflin and his counsel from presenting an insanity 

offense as insanity and competency to stand trial are different legal 

 Case: 16-50076 Document: 00513763845 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2016
No. 16-50076

3

characteristics. See United States v. Fratus, 530 F.2d 644, 646-649 (5th Cir. 

1976).

Claflin also challenges the district court’s determination that 

involuntary medication is substantially likely to render him competent to 

stand trial. He claims that the record does not support that any antipsychotic 

drug would be effective to restore his competency and that his lengthy mental 

health history makes it unlikely that he can be restored to competency. The 

district court’s determination on this Sell factor is a factual finding which is 

reviewed for clear error. Palmer, 507 F.3d at 303.

Our review of the record reveals no clear error in the district court’s 

factual findings. The doctor in charge of Claflin’s case testified that he believed 

Claflin would respond to antipsychotic medication when administered over 

sufficient time. Claflin’s history also shows that he responds well to 

antipsychotic medication, but he refuses to adhere to any regimen in taking 

the medication. Accordingly, Claflin has failed to show that the district court 

erred in its analysis of this Sell factor.

Based on the foregoing, the district court did not err plainly or otherwise 

in determining that Claflin’s involuntary medication under Sell is necessary to 

further important governmental interests and that involuntary medication 

would restore Claflin’s competency to stand trial. The judgment of the district 

court is, therefore, AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-50076 Document: 00513763845 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/17/2016