FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 09-14740

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 08-20534-CR-JEM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SAINGELUS SAINGERARD,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(September 30, 2010)

Before EDMONDSON, BLACK and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Saingelus Saingerard appeals, contesting the district court’s determination

that Saingerard was competent to stand trial. No reversible error has been shown;

we affirm.

During a period of supervised release following his conviction for several

federal drug offenses, Saingerard resided in an Immigrations and Customs

Enforcement processing center . While there, he punched an officer and bit off a

portion of the officer’s little finger. Saingerard was indicted on one count of

assaulting a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1).

The district court granted the government’s motion for a hearing on

Saingerard’s competency to stand trial. At the hearing, two experts presented

conflicting evidence. Dr. Heather Holmes, testifying on behalf of Saingerard,

asserted that he suffered from a delusional disorder with associated depression that

could affect his ability to assist in his own defense. Dr. Rodolfo Buigas, testifying

on behalf of the government, asserted that Saingerard suffered from a paranoid

personality disorder but that this disorder did not affect his ability to understand

the legal process and to assist in his defense. At the district court’s request, both

parties submitted memoranda and proposed orders on the issue of Saingerard’s

2
competency.

After considering the evidence and the parties’ memoranda, the district court

determined that Saingerard was able to understand the legal process, relay

information to his lawyer, and assist in decisionmaking. Thus, the court

determined that he was competent to stand trial.

Saingerard later moved to renew his motion to be declared incompetent.

The court responded by ordering additional psychological testing. At a second

competency hearing, the court reviewed the results of the additional testing as well

as the evidence presented at the first hearing and again determined that Saingerard

was competent to stand trial.

At trial, a jury convicted Saingerard of the charged offense. Saingerard has

appealed, arguing the district court erred in crediting the testimony of the

government’s expert and that the court’s own observations supported a finding that

Saingerard lacked competency to stand trial.

We review a district court’s determination of “‘competency to stand trial as a

factfinding subject to reversal only for clear error.’” United States v. Izquierdo,

448 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Hogan, 986 F.2d

1364, 1371 (11th Cir. 1993)).

A person is incompetent to stand trial if “there is reasonable cause to believe

3
that the defendant may presently be suffering from a mental disease or defect

rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand

the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in

his defense.” 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a); see also Dusky v. United States, 80 S. Ct. 788,

789 (1960).

Saingerard was given ample opportunity to demonstrate incompetence to

stand trial. The district court did not commit clear error in considering the

conflicting expert testimony and crediting one view over the other. “‘Where there

are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them

cannot be clearly erroneous.’” Izquierdo, 448 F.3d at 1278 (quoting Anderson v.

City of Bessemer City, 105 S. Ct. 1504, 1511 (1985)). Because the district court

did not clearly err in its determination that Saingerard was competent to stand trial,

we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

4