Th e Ho no ra ble Ros e mary

S. Po ole r, or ig ina lly

a ssi g ne d to thi s p ane l, d id n ot p art ic ipate * in t he c on sid e ratio n o f t

his a pp e a l. T he re ma ini ngtw o me mbe rs of the pa ne l, who are in ag ree ment, have de termined this matter. See Second Circuit Interna l Operating Proc edure E(b); 28 U. S.C. § 4 6( d) ; United States v. De simone , 140 F.3d 457 ( 2d Cir. 1998). Kimba M. Wood, of the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of New ** York, sitting by

desig nation. 09 -14 04 -cr USA v. Ekeagwu UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R ul i ngs by s umm ary o rder do n ot have prece denti al ef fect . C i t ati on to a s umm ary o rder fi l ed on or aft er Ja nua ry 1 , 2 0 0 7 , i s p e r m itte d a n d is g o v e r n e d b y F e d e r a l R u le o f A p p e lla te P r o c e d u r e 3 2 .1 a n d t h is c o u r t’ s L o c a l R u le 32. 1. 1. W he n c i t i ng a s ummar y or de r i n a d ocu men t f i l ed w i t h t hi s c our t , a par t y mus t c i t e ei t he r t he Fede ral A p p en d i x o r a n elec tro n i c d a ta b a se (w i th th e no ta tion “ su m m a ry o rd er ” ). A p a rty citi n g a su m m a ry o rd er m u st se r v e a c o p y o f it o n a n y p a r ty n o t r e p r e se n te d b y c o u n se l. 1 At a stated te rm o f t h e Uni ted States Court of Appea ls for the Sec ond Circuit, held at the 2 Daniel Patric k Moy nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of New York, on 3 the 12 day

of Mar ch, two thousand ten. th 4 5 PRES ENT: 6 7 DEB RA ANN L I VI NGSTON, 8 Circuit Judge, * 9 KI MBA M. WOOD 10 District Judge . ** 11 12 13 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, 14 Appellee , 15 16 -v.- No. 09-1404-c r 17 Summary Orde r 18 J OACHI M CHI BU Z OR EKEAGWU, 19 Defendant- Appellant . 20 21 22 Jo n ath anE . G r e e n, As s i s t an tU n i t e d S t at e s A t t o r

n e y ( B e n t o nJ. 23 Campbell, United States Attorney , and S usan Corker y , Assistant 24 United States Attorney , on the brief ), Easter n District of Ne w York, 25 Br ookly n, NY, for Appellee .2

1 Robin C. S mith, Brookly n, NY, for Defendant-Appe llant . 2 3 4 Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of Ne w 5 York (D ear ie, J. ). 6 UPON DUE CONSI DERATI ON I T I S HERE BY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND 7 DECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF FI RMED. 8 Def

endant- Appellant Joachim Chibuz or Ekea g wu appe als from a judg ment of convic tion 9 enter ed on F ebrua

ry 26, 2009, following his guilty plea to the importation and posse ssion with int ent 10 to distribute of 100 g rams or more of he roin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) , 841(b)( 1)(B )(i), 11 952(a) , 960(a) (1), 960(b)( 2)(A) . On appea l, he argues that the district court a bused its discretion by 12 fa ili ng to or de r a c omp e te nc y he ari ng pr ior to a c c e pti nghis ple a . We a ssume the pa rt ie s’ fa mil iari ty 13 wi th t

he un de rl ying

fa c ts, the pr oc e dura l hi sto ry of the c a se , a

nd the iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. 14 Upon its own motion, a court must order a hea ringto determine the mental compete ncy of 15 a def

endant “ if there is reasona b l e ca u se to believe that the def endant may

prese ntly be suff ering 16 fr om a me nta l dis e a se or de fe c t re nd e ri ng him me nta lly inc omp e te nt t o th e e xtent th at he is una ble 17 to u

nd e rs tand the natur e and

c on se qu e nc e s o f t

he pr oc e e din g s a g a ins t hi m or to a ssi st p ro pe rl y in h is 18 de fe ns e .” 18 U. S.C. § 4 24 1( a ); se e als o U nite d S tates v . H e ms i , 901 F.2d 293, 295 ( 2d Cir. 1990) 19 (In deter

mining whe ther a

hear ing is n ee d ed , a cour t considers “ ‘whe ther [the defe ndant] has 20 sufficie nt present a bilit y t o co n s u lt with his lawy er w ith a rea sonable de g ree of rational 21 un d er s t an d i n g –

an d wh et h er h e h as a ra t i o n al as we l l as fa ctu al un d er s t an d i n g o f th e p ro ce ed i n gs 22 a g a i n s t h i m . ’” (qu o t i n g Dusky v. United States , 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960) (pe r cur iam))) . 23 “De termination of whe ther ther e is ‘re asonable cause ’ to believe a def endant may

be incompete nt 24 rests in the discre tion of the court.” United States v. Vamos , 797 F.2d 1146, 1150 ( 2d Cir. 1986).3

1 We s e e no a bu se of dis c re tio n he re . Th e re is no e vid e nc e that E ke a g wu la c ke d th e a

bil ity to 2 consult with his attorney s or did not understand the nature of the proc eeding s ag ainst him. Neither 3 o f h i s at t o r n e ys e x p r e s s e d

an y c o n c e r

n s r e g ar d i n gh i s c o mp e t e n c y t o th e c o urt . T o th e c o n tr ar y, 4 during Ekea g wu’s succ essive plea proce eding s, both of his attorney s indicated to the c ourt that he 5 was c om p et en t and able to understand the pr ocee dings. See V amos , 797 F.2d at 1150 (“[S] ince 6 inc omp e te nc y

inv olv e s an in a

bil ity to a ssi st i n th e pr e pa

ra tio n o f a de fe ns e or

ratio na lly

to 7 compre hend the nature of the proce eding s, failure by trial counsel to indicate the prese nce of such 8 difficulties provides substantial e vidence of t h e d e f e n d a nt' s c o mp e te n c e . ” ) . E k e a gwu was r esponsive 9 to the court’s questions, and confirmed that he understood the nature of t he charg es aga inst him and 10 the ri g hts he wo uld be g ivi ng up by ple a din g g uil ty . Duri ng his se c on d ple a he ari ng , the c ourt its e lf 11 no te d, in re sp on se to a c omm e nt by c ouns e l, t hat E ke a g wu

“ so un d[e d] inte lli g e nt” and su bs e qu e ntl y 12 conclude d that he wa s “ac ting voluntar ily . . . [and] fully underst[ood] his rights, the c onsequenc es 13 and possible conse quence s of his plea.” S e e id. (“Th e qu e sti on

of c omp e te nc y

to s tand tr ia l is 14 limit ed to th e d e f e n d an t’ s a

b il it ie s at t

h e ti me o f

tr ia l . . . . A c c o r d in g ly , d e f e r e n c e is o w e d

to the 15 district court’s de terminations based on obse rvation of the de fenda nt during the proc eeding s.”). 16 E k e a g wu ’ s c o n c e r nr e g ar d i n g h i s d e c i s i o nt o p l e a d g u i l ty i s n o te v i d e n c e o f

i n c o mp e t e n c y, 17 notwithstanding the f act that a s a result of wit hdraw ing his first plea, he lost the benefit of his plea 18 ag ree ment and ultimately rec eived a longe r sentenc e. The rec ord indicate s that when he withdrew 19 his fi rs t pl e a

and wh e n h e e xpre sse d co ncer n r e g ard inghis se c on d p le a at se nte nc ing , h e did

so 20 beca

use he be lieved ther e wa s a problem with the g overnme nt's ev i d en ce . Although he was 21 appar ently

never disabused of this not ion, his second cour t-appointed attorney

explained on the 22 rec ord that Ekea g wu had the oppor tunity to discuss his theory of t he evidence both with counsel and 23 with a family

friend f rom Texas, also an attorney . Ba sed on these c onversations, Ekeag wu dec ided4

1 not to procee d to trial, pleade d g uilty a second time, a nd unambig uously

admitted his guilt, stating 2 that he “intentionally , knowing ly came into this very

country , havingdruginside [hi s] s y stem.” 3 We have c onsidered a ll o f E k ea gwu ’s remaining a rguments and find them to be without 4 merit. For

the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the district cour t is hereby

AFF I RMED. 5 6 7 FOR THE COURT: 8 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 9