1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BEAUMONT DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

JUAN SUAREZ-PUPO

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NUMBER 1:23-CR-00019-MAC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON

THE DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and the Local Rules for the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of Texas, this criminal proceeding is before the undersigned United States 

magistrate judge.

On March 28, 2023, the Defendant filed a notice of insanity defense (Doc. No. 11) and 

motion seeking a psychiatric or psychological exam to determine if the Defendant was suffering 

from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent he is unable to 

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

defense. The court granted that motion on March 28, 2023. (Doc. No. 12, 13.) The Defendant 

was subsequently evaluated by Cynthia A. Low, Ph.D., Licensed Psychologist at the Federal 

Correctional Institution in Seatac, Washington, and found competent. 

Dr. Low’s psychiatric report concludes that the Defendant “does not appear to suffer from 

a mental disease or defect rendering him unable to understand the nature and consequences of the 

proceedings against him or to properly assist in his defense.” (Doc. No. 20.)

A competency hearing was conducted on October 11, 2023. At the hearing, the Defendant 

appeared in court with his counsel, David Barlow. Mr. Barlow did object to Dr. Low’s opinion on 

Case 1:23-cr-00019-MAC-ZJH Document 22 Filed 10/20/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:

71
2

competency. Neither the Government nor the defense objected to the psychological report’s

results and findings. 

The undersigned concludes that the Defendant is able to understand the nature and 

consequences of the proceedings against him and to assist properly in his defense. The Defendant 

has a rational and factual understanding of the proceeding against him, and has sufficient present 

ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 4241(d); see also Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960)

RECOMMENDATION

The court should find the Defendant competent to stand trial because he understands the 

nature and consequences of the proceeding against him and is able to assist in his defense. See 18 

U.S.C. § 4241. It is further recommended that the speedy trial time be excluded from March 28, 

2023 (the date the Defendant filed an Unopposed Motion for Psychiatric Exam), until the date on 

which the District Judge signs the order adopting this report and recommendation.

OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), each party to this action has the right to file 

objections to this Report and Recommendation. Objections to this Report must (1) be in writing, 

(2) specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, (3) be 

served and filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report, and (4) be 

no more than eight (8) pages in length. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(2); 

E.D. TEX. CRIM. R. CR-59(c). A party who objects to this Report is entitled to a de novo

determination by the United States District Judge of those proposed findings and recommendations 

to which a specific objection is timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(3).

Case 1:23-cr-00019-MAC-ZJH Document 22 Filed 10/20/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:

72
3

A party’s failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy 

of this report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States District 

Judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–

77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such findings 

of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States District Judge, see Douglass v. United 

Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, at 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 20th day of October, 2023.

Case 1:23-cr-00019-MAC-ZJH Document 22 Filed 10/20/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:

73