FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ay 10, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK

The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge , United States Court of International Trade , * sitti ngby desig nation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 14641

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 0 - 0 0 6 7 7 - C R - KA M U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f- A p p e lle e , v ersu s J A V I E R I Z Q U I E R D O , D e fe n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt forthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 10, 2006) B efore T JO F L A T and H U L L , C i rc ui tJudg es , and R E S T A N I , Judg e. * P E R C U R I A M: D e fe nda nt - A ppe l l a ntJ a vi e rI z qui e r do ( “ I z qui e r do” ) a ppe a l s hi s c oc a i neThe plea agreement provided that the g overnment would seek dismissal of Counts Iand 1 IV of the indictment in exchang e for Izquierdo’s guiltyplea, which it did.

2 di s tr i but i on a nd f

i r e a r m c onvi c t i ons tha tw e r e ba s e d on hi s gui l ty pl e a . I z qui e r do cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n d enyi ng hi s s ub se qu entm ot i on t o w i thd ra w hi s gui l t y pl eabase d o n i ncom pet ency . A ft erre vi ew and o ra l ar gu m ent , w e a ff i rm th e d en i al o f Izq u i erd o ’ s m o t i o n an d h i s co n v i ct i o n s. I . Ba c k g r o und A . Pl e a c o l l o quy Iz qu i er do , the sol e app el l anthere , and h i s brother, Juan Iz qu i er do (“ Juan”) , w e r e in d ic te d fo rr o b b e r y , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 1 ( C o u n t I ) ; c o n s p ir a c y to di stri bu t e c ocai ne, i n v i ol ati on of 21 U . S . C . § 8 41 (C ou ntII ); use of afi re ar m dur i ng adr ug tr a f

f i c ki ng c r i m e a nd dur i ng ac r i m e of vi ol e nc e , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 2 4 (C o u n tIII); an d , as t o Izq u i erd o o n l y, p o ssessi o n o f a fi rearm as a c onvi c t e d fe l on, i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 922 ( C ountI V ) . O n S e pt e m be r10, 20 01 , pu rs uantt o a w ri tt en pl eaagre em ent , Iz qu i er do pl ea ded g ui l ty t o C ou nt s I I a n d I I I o f

th e in d ic tm e n t. 1 D uri ng Iz qu i er do ’ s pl eacol l oq uy, hi s a tt orney e xp l ai ned t o the di stri ctcourt thatIz qu i er do w as i l l i t er at e a nd thathi s pl eaagre em enthad b ee n p re vi ou sl y r ea d a l oud— ve rba t i m — t o I z qui e r do by both hi s a tt or ne y a nd hi s br othe rJ ua n. U pon qu es t i on i ng by the di stri ctcourt , Iz qu i er do st at ed, i nt eral i a, thathe had n everbeen3

tr e a t e d foram e nt a l i l l ne s s ; tha the w a s notpr e s e nt l y unde rthe i nf l ue nc e of a ny d ru g s, alco h o l, o r m ed icatio n ; th at h e w as sa ti sf ied w ith h is atto rn ey ’s r e p r e s e n ta tio n ; th a t h e h a d af u ll o p p o r tu n ity to r e v ie w th e c h a r g e s a g a in s t h im w i th hi s a tt or ne y ; tha the a gr e e d w i th the a l l e ge d fa c t s a s de s c r i be d by the g o v e r n m e n t; a n d th a t h e u n d e r s to o d “e a c h a n d e v e r y te r m o f th e p le aa g r e e m e n t,” i nc l udi ng hi s s e nt e nc i ng pos s i bi l i t i e s , tha the w a s s urr e nde r i ng c e r t a i n c i vi l a nd tr i a l r i ght s , a nd tha the m i ghti nc uraf i ne ors uf

fe ra dve r s e i m m i gr a t i on c ons e que nc e s . A ddi t i ona l l y , I z qui e r do t w i c e a c know l e dge d tha the w a s thi nki ng c le a r ly . B a s e d o n th e p le ac o llo q u y , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo u n d I z q u ie r d o “f u lly c o m p e te n t a n d c a p ab le o f e n te r in g a n in fo r m e d p le a ,” a n d a c c e p te d h is g u ilty p le a . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s c h e d u le d s e n te n c in g fo rD e c e m b e r1 1 , 2 0 0 1 . B . Ju an ’s tr i al an d th e H ab er R ep ort I n th e in te r im , b r o th e rJ u a n ’s tr ia l c o m m e n c e d o n N o v e m b e r1 4 , 2 0 0 1 . D uri ng thattri al , Juan fi l ed an ex part e m ot i on t o h ave I zqui er do decl ar ed i nc om pe t e nt . J ua n’ s m ot i on a r gue d tha the c oul d notha ve pa r t i c i pa t e d i n a c ons pi r a c y w i th I z qui e r do be c a us e I z qui e r do w a s of uns ound m i nd. I n s uppor tof hi s e x pa r t e m ot i on, J ua n f i l e d ar e por tof

aps y c hol ogi c a l e va l ua t i on of I z qui e r do by M erry H aber , P h. D . , a psy chol og i st(the “ H aberR eport ”) . Juan’ s c ou nselHab eradmi ni s teredth e W ec h s l erAdu l tIntel l i gen ceS cal e- III , th e W i d e R an ge 2 Achievement Test-3, and the B ender Gestalt &Bender Gestalt Recall Test. Izquierdo’s mother informe d Haber that Izquierdo did not beg in walkinguntil agetwo, 3 di dn o tb egi nt al ki n g u nti lagethre e, an ddi dn o tl earntoti e h i s s h o es o r dre s s hi m s el f u nti lage nine. 4 r e t a i ne d H a be rt o e va l ua t e I z qui e r do, w hi c h s he di d on N ove m be r21, 2001. T he H a b e rR e p o r t c o n c lu d e d th a t I z q u ie r d o w a s in c o m p e te n t. In her R eport , H abersum m ar i ze d h ereval uat i on of Iz qu i er do . H aber adm i ni st er ed a m ent al st atus exam i nat i on , a c l i ni ca l i nt er vi ew , a s t andardi ze d i nt e l l i ge nc e t e s t , at e s tof r e a di ng, s pe l l i ng, a nd a r i thm e t i c a c hi e ve m e nt , a nd a m easu re o f v i su al -m o t o r co o rd i n at i o n , p ercep tu al o rg an i zat i o n , an d m em o ry. 2 H a be ra l s o c ons ul t e d I z qui e r do’ s m othe ra nd s i s t e r . P r i ort o H a be r ’ s e va l ua t i on, I z q u ie r d o w a s to ld th a t th e r e s u lts o f th e e x a m in a tio n w o u ld b e g iv e n to h is a tto r n e y a n d to J u a n ’s a tto r n e y . B a s e d on H a be r ’ s di s c us s i ons w i th I z qui e r do, hi s m othe ra nd s i s t e r , a nd J u a n ’s a tto r n e y , th e H a b e rR e p o r t s ta te d th a t I z q u ie r d o : ( 1 ) w a s b o r n w ith h is um bi l i ca l cord t i gh tar ou nd hi s nec k, and as are sul t , he suff er ed a l ac k o f oxygen a nd w a s de ve l opm e nt a l l y s l ow ; ( 2) qui ts c hool i n the e i ghth gr a de a f t e rbe i ng 3 expel l ed for f

i gh t i ng se vera l t i m es , and w as un abl e t o l earn t o rea d o r w ri t e; (3) r an aw ay fr om ho m e a s at ee nager beca use he di d n otw antt o rec ei ve psyc ho l og i ca l tr e a t m e nt ; ( 4) ne ve rhe l d adr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e be c a us e he c oul d notpa s s the t e s t ; ( 5)5

s uf fe r e d ac onc us s i on a ta ge t w e nty - t w o; ( 6) ha s ahi s t or y of f r e que ntdr ug a nd al coho l use; (7) has troub l e fal l i ng as l ee p; (8) di d n otun ders t and everythi ng that ha ppe ne d w he n he pl e a de d gui l ty , i nc l udi ng the m e a ni ng of the w or d “ pa r ol e ” ; a nd ( 9 ) d id n o t a s k q u e s tio n s a t h is p le ac o llo q u y b e c a u s e h e d id n o t w a n t p e o p le to thi nk he w a s s tupi d. A ddi t i ona l l y , ba s e d on H a be r ’ s t e s t s a nd obs e r va t i ons , the H a b e rR e p o r t c o n c lu d e d th a t I z q u ie r d o : ( 1 ) w a s “w e ll o r ie n te d in a ll s p h e r e s w ith a tte n tio n a n d c o n c e n tr a tio n in ta c t” ; ( 2 ) h a d “c o h e r e n t, p r o d u c tiv e a n d g o a lori ent ed” tho ug htproces se s; (3) w hen l ef tal on e, att em pt ed t o com pl et e aprob l em th a t h e h a d b e e n u n a b le to c o m p le te d u r in g h is te s t, in d ic a tin g h is in v o lv e m e n t in the pr oc e s s ; ( 4) c oul d a dd one - di gi tnum be r s w i th s om e m i s t a ke s , butc oul d not a dd t w o- di gi tnum be r s ; ( 5) kne w the a l pha be t , butc oul d nots pe l l on af i r s tgr a de l evel ; and (6) had a general l y i nadequ at e “ fund of i nform ati on . ” T he H aberR eport c o n c lu d e d th a t in te lle c tu a lly , I z q u ie r d o h a d a n I Q o f f if ty - th r e e to s ix ty - o n e , a r a n g e c o rr e s p o n d in g to “m o d e r a te to m ild m e n ta l r e ta r d a tio n , a n d th a t te s t r e s u lts

“ sugg es t [e d] thathe [w as ] no tcom pet entt o p roce ed, ” a l tho ug h, no t abl y, “ [a ] form al com pet ency eval uat i on w as no tperform ed. ” T he H aberR eport r e c om m e nde d tha tafor m a l c om pe t e nc y e va l ua t i on be c onduc t e d. B a s e d on the H a b e rR e p o r t, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d e c la r e d am is tr ia l in J u a n ’s c a s e .6

C . T h e F i rs t F M C R ep ort S ub se qu ent l y, on D ec em ber 7, 20 01 (fou r day s before hi s s chedul ed s e nt e nc i ng) , I z qui e r do f i l e d a n unoppos e d m ot i on fora n i nde pe nde nt ps y c hol ogi c a l e va l ua t i on, s uppor t e d by the H a be rR e por t . O n D e c e m be r13, 2001, th e d istrict co u rt g ra n ted Iz q u ierd o ’s m o ti o n an d re co m m en d ed th at Iz q u ierd o ’s c om pe t e nc y be e va l ua t e d a tthe F e de r a l M e di c a l C e nt e ri n B ut ne r , N or th C a r ol i na ( “ F M C ” ) . A tthe F M C , I z qui e r do w a s e va l ua t e d by aps y c hi a tr i c t e a m l e d by R obe r tL uc ki ng, M . D . , ( “ L uc ki ng” ) , aps y c hi a tr i s t . O n M a r c h 25, 2002, L uc ki ng a uthor e d ar e por tof

hi s t e a m ’ s f

i ndi ngs ba s e d on the i re va l ua t i on of I z qui e r do ( the “F ir s t F M C R e p o r t” ) . B as ed on the F M C t ea m ’ s i nt er vi ew s w i th Izqui er do , the F i rs tF M C R eport s t a t e d, a m ong othe rthi ngs , tha tI z qui e r do: ( 1) s uf fe r e d abl ow t o the he a d i n 1995, a s w e l l a s othe rhe a d tr a um a ; ( 2) c oul d notr e a d orw r i t e ; ( 3) ha d be e n tr e a t e d e i ght tim e s a s aju v e n ile fo rd r u g a n d a lc o h o l a b u s e , b u t h a d r e f u s e d to c o n s is te n tly att end p sy chi atri c tre atm enti n spi t e of are com m endat i on thathe re ce i ve such tr e a t m e nt ; ( 4) di d nots l e e p w e l l ; ( 5) s uf fe r e d f r om m ood s w i ngs butnot hal l uci nat i on ; (6) had a hi st ory of a no xi a ( decr ea se d o xygen t o the brai n); (7) never p a s s e d h is d r iv e r ’s te s t, b u t d r o v e a n y w a y ; a n d ( 8 ) o f te n g o t lo s t, e v e n w h ile a tte m p tin g to lo c a te h is o w n h o m e .Acc ordingto the First FMC Report, Lucking ’s team administ ere d the following 4 proce dures during Izquierdo’s first evaluation: (1) clinical interviews; (2) behavioral observation; (3) phy sical examination; (4) Mag netic Resonanc e Imag ing ( “MRI”) of Izquierdo’s brain; (5) Bender V isual Motor Gestalt Test; (6) B ender Visual Motor Gestalt Rec all Test; (7) Trail MakingTest; (8) Rey Auditory -Verbal Learning T est (“RAVLT”); ( 9) B ooklet Categ ory Test (“ BCT” ); and (10) Validity Indicator Prof

ile (“V IP”). 7 T he F i rs tF M C R eportal so no t ed, base d o n a m ul t i tud e of t es t s cond uct ed 4 by L uc ki ng a nd hi s t e a m , tha tI z qui e r do: ( 1) w a s or i e nt e d t o pe opl e a nd pl a c e s , but no tt i m e; (2) had di ff

i cul ty f i nd i ng the corr ec tw ords for obj ec t s; (3) per form ed s im p le m e m o r y ta s k s a d e q u a te ly , b u t c o u ld n o t r e c ite th e m o n th s o f th e y e a rin c orr e c tor de r ; ( 4) w a s a bl e t o c ountf r om one t o t w e nty a nd t w e nty t o one w i thout error, bu tw i th som e di ff i cul ty; (5) w as bel ow aver age i n rec al l i ng i deas expres se d i n a st o ry an d w as u n ab l e t o th i n k ab stract l y atan y l ev el u si n g si m i l ari t i es, di f fe r e nc e s , orpr ove rbs ; ( 6) s how e d no s i gni f i c a ntl a ngua ge de f

i c i t s , buts how e d a de f i c i ti n vi s ua l m e m or y ; ( 7) c oul d note xpl a i n how s i m i l a ri t e m s w e r e r e l a t e d; ( 8) coul d d ra w si m pl e t w o-di m ensi on al and t hree -di m ensi on al obj ec t s w i tho uti ss ue, b u t s tr u g g le d w ith d r a w in g m o r e d if f ic u lt th r e e - d im e n s io n a l o bje c ts ; ( 9 ) h a d aw e ll bel ow no rm al “ fund of general i nform ati on ”; (10) l ac ked m ath abi l i ty a nd had d if f ic u lty p u ttin g le tte r s in s e q u e n tia l o r d e r ; ( 1 1 ) c o u ld n o t id e n tif y w h ic h o bje c t in as e r ie s w a s u n lik e th e o th e r s ; ( 1 2 ) u n d e r s to o d th e c o n c e p t o f “f in d e r s - k e e p e r s ,” and w as abl e t o exp l ai n correc t l y “ w hy w e have fi re i nsurance, ” butw as confused b y th e c o n c e p t o f

p la n n in g ath r e e - d a y tr ip f r o m M ia m i to T a m p aB a y a n d c o u ld8

n o t p r o g r e s s b e y o n d th e s te p o f b o rr o w in g ac a rto m a k e th e d r iv e . A c c o r d in g to th e F ir s t F M C R e p o r t, a lth o u g h I z q u ie r d o ’s o v e r a ll te s t r e s u lts in d ic a te d n o b r a in d a m a g e , th e y d id in d ic a te c o g n itiv e d if f ic u ltie s a n d m e m o r y im p a ir m e n ts . In th e F irst F M C R ep o rt, L u ck in g n o ted so m e irr eg u lariti es in Iz q u ierd o ’s t es tre sul t s. O n o ne t es t(the R A V L T ), L ucki ng no t ed thatIz qu i er do perform ed w o r s e th a n m o d e r a te ly im p a ir e d A lz h e im e r ’s a n d P a r k in s o n ’s d is e a s e p a tie n ts . L uc ki ng a l s o not e d tha tI z qui e r do m a y ha ve be e n e xa gge r a t i ng hi s l e ve l of i m pa i r m e nton the B C T , be c a us e I z qui e r do m i s s e d m or e tha n the us ua l num be rof e a s y que s t i ons on tha tt e s t

— i t e m s tha ta r e ge ne r a l l y m i s s e d by l e s s tha n f i ve p er ce n t o f b ra in -d am ag ed p eo p le. F in ally, L u ck in g o b se rv ed th at Iz q u ierd o ’s resp o n ses o n th e V IP t esti n d i cat ed a l ack o f m o t i v at i o n an d i n t erest , an d th e F i rst F M C R e por tc onc l ude d tha tI z qui e r do’ s pe r for m a nc e on the V I P “ pr oba bl y [ di d] no tre fl ec thi s true abi l i ty. ” N ever thel es s, i n the F i rs tF M C R eport , L ucki ng ul t i m at el y c on cl ud ed that Iz qu i er do : (1) had show n a basi c c on si st ency and n o att em ptt o m i sl ea d, and h ad p e r fo r m e d in am o d e r a te ly to s e v e r e ly im p a ir e d r a n g e ; ( 2 ) r e s p o n d e d to s o m e te s ts i n ar a n d o m ma n n e ra n d ma y n o th a v e d e mo n s tr a t e d h i s tr u e a b i l i t i e s o n s o me te s ts ; ( 3 ) s u f

fe r e d f r o m “m ild ” m e n ta l r e ta r d a tio n ; ( 4 ) w a s n o t a tte m p tin g to m al i ng erand m ade aval i d att em ptt o p ar t i ci pat e i n the t es t i ng ; and (5) m ade a n9

e f fo r t to d is g u is e h im s e lf

a s f u n c tio n in g a t ah ig h e rle v e l to a v o id h u m ilia tio n . F i na l l y , the F i r s tF M C R e por tde t e r m i ne d tha tI z qui e r do w a s notc om pe t e nta nd w a s unl i ke l y t o be c om e c om pe t e nt , a nd tha tI z qui e r do di d notunde r s t a nd the m ea ni ng of “ gu i l ty, ” “ no tgu i l ty, ” or the nature a nd consequences of the cr i m i nal p r o c e e d in g s a g a in s t h im . T h e F ir s t F M C R e p o r t a ls o r e c o m m e n d e d th a t I z q u ie r d o b e r e tu r n e d to B u tn e rfo rap e r io d o f

1 2 0 d a y s , p u r s u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 4 2 4 1 ( d ) , to d e te r m in e if h is co m p eten cy co u ld b e r es to re d . L u ck in g later e x p lain ed th at if Iz q u ierd o ’s

“ de f i c i t s ” w e r e due t o a n or ga ni c br a i n i nj ur y , i tw oul d be unl i ke l y tha tI z qui e r do co u ld b e r es to re d to co m p eten cy , b u t L u ck in g fu rth erin d icated th at “w e w o u ld n ’t [ h a v e ] b e [ e n ] a b le to te ll fo rc e r ta in u n le s s w e h a d h im b a c k a n d w e a tte m p te d to educat e hi m re gardi ng the tri al proces s. ” A dd i t i on al l y, L ucki ng foun d n o evi dence o f h al l u ci n at i o n s o r d el u si o n s. T h e F i rstF M C R ep o rtcau t i o n ed th atb ecau se Izq u i erd o ’ s p ri m ary l an g u ag e w as S p an i sh , h i s ab i l i ty t o read an d w ri t e i n E n g l i sh w a s n o t to b e g iv e n e x c e s s w e ig h t in a s s e s s in g h is in te llig e n c e . D . M o t i o n t o w i t hdr a w a nd t he f i r s tc o m pe t e nc y he a r i ng O n M a y 6 , 2 0 0 2 , I z q u ie r d o f ile d am o tio n to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty p le aa n d to be de c l a r e d i nc om pe t e nt . I z qui e r do’ s m ot i on w a s ba s e d on the H a be rR e por ta nd the F i rs tF M C R eport . In re spon se , the go vernm entadvi se d the di stri ctcourtthat10

O sc arD i az (“ D i az ”) , an i nm at e a tthe fe dera l det ent i on ce nt erw here Iz qu i er do had b e e n h e l d , h a d t o l d a g e n t s th a tI z q u i e r d o h a d t o l d D i a z , p r i o rt o I z q u i e r d o ’ s F MC e va l ua t i on, tha the pl a nne d “ t o a c tc r a z y ” i n or de rt o be found i nc om pe t e nt . T he gove r nm e nta l s o a r gue d tha tI z qui e r do a c t e d r a t i ona l l y dur i ng hi s pl e ahe a r i ng a nd th a t I z q u ie r d o h im s e lf

d e m a n d e d ap le ac o n c e s s io n f r o m th e g o v e r n m e n t, de m ons tr a t i ng hi s l uc i di ty a nd foc us . T he di s tr i c tc our tr e fe rr e d the i s s ue t o a m a g is tr a te ju d g e , w h o o r d e r e d a n e v id e n tia r y h e a r in g . T he he a r i ng t ook pl a c e on J une 21, 2002. A f t e rL uc ki ng w a s s e ntoutof the courtroom , D i az t es t i fi ed for the go vernm ent . S peci fi ca l l y, D i az t es t i fi ed that I z qui e r do t ol d hi m i n D e c e m be r2001 tha tI z qui e r do w a s pr e t e ndi ng t o be “ i l l ” a nd a c tin g lik e h e w a s “c r a z y ” s o th a t th e d o c to r s w o u ld f in d h im m e n ta lly ill. A c c o r d in g to D ia z , I z q u ie r d o to ld h im th a t in o r d e rto a p p e a rm e n ta lly ill, Izq u i erd o “ t o l d th e d o ct o r th ath e co u l d n ’ tsl eep , th ath e h ad a l o to f h ead ach es, thathe had . . . vi si on s a tni gh t. . . [a nd ] thathe fe l tl i ke he w as si ck. ” W hen D i az a s ke d I z qui e r do i f

a l l of tha tw a s tr ue , I z qui e r do e xpl a i ne d tha tthe r e w a s nothi ng a c tua l l y w r ong w i th hi m . D i a z a l s o t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d s e e n I z qui e r do r e a di ng bo ok s i n h i s c el l , w ri t i ng po st cards a nd po etry , and d ra w i ng t att oo s. D i az ac kn ow l edged t hathe on ce had t o rea d a l ett ert o Izqui er do beca use i tw as w ri tt en in S p a n is h . D ia z f

u r th e rte s tif

ie d th a t h e d id n o t k n o w th a t I z q u ie r d o w a s b o r n in11

S p a in a n d r a is e d in th e D o m in ic a n R e p u b lic . Iz qu i er do ’ s m other a nd L ucki ng al so t es t i fi ed atthe heari ng , i n a m anner subst ant i al l y c on si st entw i th thei r s t at em ent s a s r ec orded i n the F i rs tF M C R eport a nd the H a be rR e por t . I z qui e r do’ s m othe rs t a t e d tha tI z qui e r do w a s bor n w i th the um bi l i c a l c or d t w i s t e d a r ound hi s ne c k a nd tha the de ve l ope d s l ow l y . L uc ki ng e s s e nt i a l l y r e i t e r a t e d hi s opi ni ons c ont a i ne d i n the F i r s tF M C R e por t , i nc l udi ng th a t I z q u ie r d o w a s in c o m p e te n t. H ow ever , L ucki ng ac kn ow l edged t hati tw as po ss i bl e thatIz qu i er do w as bei ng dece i t ful on t w o o f the t es t s; thatIz qu i er do show ed som e i ncon si st enci es d u ri n g t est i n g ; th atth e M R I o f Izq u i erd o ’ s b rai n w as n o rm al ; an d th atn o t est confi rm ed hi s fam i l y’ s c l ai m thatIz qu i er do had suffe re d b ra i n d am age. M oreover, L u c k i n g t e s t i f

i e d th a ta tth e t i m e h e f

i r s tt e s t e d I z q u i e r d o a n d w r o t e th e F i r s tF MC R e p o r t, h e w a s u n a w a r e o f D ia z ’s c la im th a t I z q u ie r d o in te n d e d to m a lin g e r . L uc ki ng f

ur the rt e s t i f

i e d tha ti f

he ha d know n a boutD i a z ’ s c l a i m s a tthe t i m e of the F i rs tF M C R eport , he w ou l d h ave “ l oo k[ed] cl oseratthe dat a, and . . . m ay have soug htsom e a dd i t i on al confi rm at ory e vi dence that[he] di d n otse ek. ” L u ck i n g u l t i m at el y ag reed th atfu rth er ev al u at i o n o f Izq u i erd o w as n ecessary, t est i fyi n g th ath e “ w o u l d l i k e t o see . . . Izq u i erd o fo r so m e m o re t i m e t o reassess thi s. ”12

U l t i m a t e l y , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge found i ts i gni f i c a nttha tL uc ki ng a c k n o wl e d g e d th a th e m i g h th a v e e v a l u a t e d I z q u i e r d o d i f fe r e n t l y i f

h e h a d k n o wn a boutD i a z ’ s t e s t i m ony a tthe t i m e of the F i r s tF M C R e por t . A s s uc h, the m agi stra t e j ud ge ordered thatIz qu i er do be re turned t o the F M C for f urther e v a lu a tio n . E . T h e S ec on d F M C R ep ort T he go vernm entfi l ed a s ec on d reportaf t erL ucki ng ’ s t ea m re -e val uat ed I z q u ie r d o a t th e F M C ( th e “S e c o n d F M C R e p o r t” ) . I n th e S e c o n d F M C R e p o r t, d a te d F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 2 0 0 3 , L u c k in g c o n c lu d e d th a t I z q u ie r d o : ( 1 ) w a s c o m p e te n t, un ders t oo d the charges agai nsthi m , and cou l d ass i sti n h i s ow n d ef ense ; (2) had a tt e m pt e d t o m i s l e a d L uc ki ng i n the e a r l i e re va l ua t i on; ( 3) di d nots uf fe rf r om b r a in d a m a g e ; ( 4 ) w a s m a lin g e r in g ; a n d ( 5 ) w a s f u n c tio n a lly illite r a te . I n h is se cond eval uat i on of Iz qu i er do , L ucki ng cond uct ed: (1) c l i ni ca l i nt er vi ew s; (2) a be ha vi or a l obs e r va t i on; ( 3) aphy s i c a l e xa m i na t i on; ( 4) the V I P t e s t ; a nd ( 5) the M i n n eso t a M u l t i p h asi c P erso n al i ty In v en t o ry (seco n d ed i t i o n ). A l l o f th ese p r o c e d u r e s w e r e p e r fo r m e d in L u c k in g ’s f ir s t e v a lu a tio n , e x c e p t fo rth e M in n e s o ta M u ltip h a s ic P e r s o n a lity I n v e n to r y . S e e s u p r an o te 4 . L u ck in g ’s n ew o p in io n w as b as ed o n se v er al fa cto rs , i n clu d in g : (1 ) D iaz’s te s tim o n y ; ( 2 ) le tte r s g iv e n to L u c k in g b y I z q u ie r d o in d ic a tin g th a t I z q u ie r d o c o u ldSee Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct . 1602 (1966). 5 13 re ad and w ri t e, i ncl ud i ng on e f rom Iz qu i er do ’ s brother thatsa i d, “ I w antt o h ear fr om you t oo , and d on ’ tt el l m e no sh-tthatyou cantw ri gh t[s i c] , ca use I ’ ve se en you d o i t ”; (3) ast at em entfr om a gov er nm entagentthatsurvei l l ance i nd i ca t ed that I z qui e r do di d nota ppe a rt o ge tl os tw hi l e r e tur ni ng t o hi s hous e , c oul d us e the I nt e r ne t , ha d aF l or i dadr i ve r ’ s l i c e ns e , c oul d ne got i a t e gun a nd dr ug s a l e s , a nd bragged abo utei gh tpri or robb er i es ; (4) the go vernm entagent ’ s bel i ef that I z q u ie r d o c o u ld h a v e c a rr ie d o u t ac r im in a l p la n ; ( 5 ) I z q u ie r d o ’s r e f u s a l to s ig n h is M i ran d a w ai v er u n t i l i tw as read t o h i m ; (6 ) i n co n si st en tan d ex ag g erat ed t est

5 sc ores thati nd i ca t ed t o L ucki ng thatIz qu i er do w as perform i ng po orl y on p urpo se , i nc l udi ng the M i nne s ot aM ul t i pha s i c P e r s ona l i ty I nve nt or y t e s t , on w hi c h L uc ki ng c o n c lu d e d th a t I z q u ie r d o w a s “e n d o r s in g m u ltip le p s y c h o lo g ic a l s y m p to m s ” in o r d e rto “a p p e a rm o r e ill th a n h e is ” ; ( 7 ) I z q u ie r d o ’s p a r tic ip a tio n in ac ig a r e tte tra ff i cki ng sc hem e w hi l e a tB ut ner; (8) I zqui er do ’ s i nv ol vem enti n a gang at B u tn e r ; ( 9 ) I z q u ie r d o ’s c o h e r e n t p r o v is io n o f in fo r m a tio n to g o v e r n m e n t a g e n ts re gardi ng i nm at e a cti vi ty w hi l e i n p ri son; (10) Iz qu i er do ’ s s t at em entthathe kn ew hi s a cti on s t o b e w rong ; and (11 ) i nform ati on thatIz qu i er do had app roac hed o ther in m a te s w ith ap la n to f r a m e a n o th e rin m a te fo rp o s s e s s io n o f ah o m e m a d e k n ife .14

F. Se c o nd c o m pe t e nc y he a r i ng T he m agi stra t e j ud ge hel d a se cond com pet ency hear i ng on June 10 , 20 03 , at w hi ch L ucki ng t es t i fi ed thatIz qu i er do w as , i n fac t , com pet ent . A m on g o ther th i n g s, L u ck i n g t est i fi ed th atIzq u i erd o ’ s t estresu l t s w ere co n si st en tw i th th e t est re sul t s f rom L ucki ng ’ s pri or eval uat i on , bu t , because there w as no m edi ca l evi dence of a bra i n i nj ury, tho se t es tre sul t s now sugg es t ed t o L ucki ng that Iz qu i er do w as att em pt i ng t o p ortra y hi m se l f a s m ent al l y i l l w hen h e w as no ti n fac t m e n ta lly ill. O n c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n , L u c k in g a ls o a d m itte d th a t I z q u ie r d o ’s a b ility to re lay in fo rm atio n to g o v er n m en t ag en ts w as n o t relev an t t o Iz q u ierd o ’s com pet ency and t hatL ucki ng ’ s e xp er t i se w i th t es t s des i gn ed t o d i sc ov er m a lin g e r in g w a s lim ite d . A ft erL ucki ng ’ s J un e 10, 20 03 t es t i m on y, Iz qu i er do ’ s c ou nsel ob t ai ned pe r m i s s i on t o ha ve H a be rr e e va l ua t e I z qui e r do. A f t e rr e e xa m i ni ng I z qui e r do on S ept em ber 24, 20 03 , H aberconcl ud ed thatIz qu i er do w as no tm al i ng er i ng . H aber t es t i fi ed t o thatef

fe ctbefore the m agi stra t e j ud ge on M ar ch 2, 20 04 , and rei t er at ed her opi ni on thatIz qu i er do w as no tcom pet entt o st and tri al or ent era gui l ty pl ea a n d n e v e rw o u ld b e . G . R e p or tan d r e c om m e n d at i on U l t i m a t e l y , on M a r c h 10, 2004, the m a gi s tr a t e j udge i s s ue d ar e por t( the15

“ R & R ” ) tha tr e c om m e nde d tha tI z qui e r do’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr a w hi s gui l ty pl e abe de ni e d. T he m a gi s tr a t e j udge found tha tI z qui e r do ha d fa i l e d t o m e e thi s bur de n of es tab li sh in g th at h e w as in co m p eten t. T h e R & R re co u n ted at len g th L u ck in g ’s fin d in g s a n d o p in io n s. T h e m ag istrate ju d g e th en ex p re ss ly re jected H ab er ’s op i ni on beca use, i nt eral i a: (1) the hi st ori ca l evi dence on w hi ch H aberhad rel i ed w a s s uppl i e d e xc l us i ve l y by I z qui e r do a nd hi s fa m i l y , a nd H a be rdi d notha ve I z qui e r do’ s m e di c a l r e c or ds i n or de rt o ve r i f y I z qui e r do’ s m e di c a l ba c kgr ound; ( 2) H ab er t est i fi ed th atsh e w o u l d h av e b een “ su rp ri sed ” b y i n fo rm at i o n i n th e F i rst F M C R e p o r t, d e s p ite th e fa c t th a t s h e a ls o te s tif ie d th a t s h e h a d s u p p o s e d ly r e vi e w e d the F i r s tF M C R e por t ; a nd ( 3) i nfor m a t i on f r om the de pa r t m e ntof

m ot or v eh icles c o n trad icted Iz q u ierd o ’s claim s th at h e h ad n ev erp o ss es se d a d riv er ’s l i c e n s e a n d c o u l d n o tr e a d o rs i g n h i s n a me , a n d H a b e rh a d fo u n d th o s e c l a i ms s i gni f i c a nti n he re va l ua t i on. F i na l l y , the m a gi s tr a t e j udge not e d tha tI z qui e r do a nd hi s c ou nsel m ade no com pet ency obj ec t i on atthe t i m e of hi s pl eahear i ng and t hat the di s tr i c tc our tor i gi na l l y found I z qui e r do c om pe t e ntt o e nt e ragui l ty pl e a . T he di stri ctcourtsum m ar i l y a do pt ed the R & R and d et er m i ned t hatIz qu i er do w as c om pe t e ntt o pr oc e e d t o s e nt e nc i ng. H . S e n t e n c i n g Iz qu i er do ’ s s ent enci ng hear i ng t oo k p l ac e on A ug ust27 , 20 04 . T he pl ea16

ag reem en tst at ed th atth e g o v ern m en tw o u l d reco m m en d an o ffen se l ev el o f th i rt ytw o a n d n o o f

fe n s e le v e l e n h a n c e m e n ts . I n p a r a g r a p h tw o o f th e a g r e e m e n t, Iz qu i er do expres sl y a gree d “ thatconsec ut i ve m andat ory m i ni m um se nt ence s of t en ye ar s a s t o eac h o f [ C ] ou nt s I I a nd II I m ustbe appl i ed t o the defendant . ” P arag rap h fo u r o f th e ag reem en tal so co n t ai n ed Izq u i erd o ’ s ex p ress a c know l e dgm e nttha t“ the c our tm us ti m pos e am i ni m um t e r m of i m pr i s onm e ntof t e n ( 10) y e a r s for[ C ] ountI I , c ons e c ut i ve t o am i ni m um t e r m of i m pr i s onm e ntof t e n ( 10) y e a r s for[ C ] ountI I I , a nd m a y i m pos e as t a tut or y m a xi m um t e r m of i m pri sonm entof up t o l i fe i m pri sonm ent . ” A ft erre vi ew i ng a pre -s ent enci ng re po rt a n d c o n d u c t i n g as e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ts e n t e n c e d I z q u i e r d o t o t wo c ons e c ut i ve t e r m s of

120 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt , forat ot a l s e nt e nc e of 240 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt . I z qui e r do doe s nota ppe a l hi s s e nt e nc e , buthe a ppe a l s the deni al of hi s m ot i on t o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl ea . II . S tan d ard of R evi ew A d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f ar e q u e s t to w ith d r a w ag u ilty p le ais g e n e r a lly r e vi e w e d fora bus e of

di s c r e t i on. S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. F r e i xa s , 332 F . 3d 1314, 13 16 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). T he deni al of a m ot i on t o w i thd ra w a gui l ty pl eai s notan abuse of di sc re t i on un l es s the deni al w as “ ‘ arbi trary or un re as on abl e. ’ ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . W e a v e r , 2 7 5 F .3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 7 n .8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . A17

d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e s its d is c r e tio n if it “fa ils to a p p ly th e p r o p e rle g a l s ta n d a r d o rto fol l ow prop erprocedures i n m aki ng the det er m i nat i on , or m akes fi nd i ng s of fac t tha ta r e c l e a r l y e rr one ous . ” B i r m i ngha m S t e e l C orp. v. T V A , 353 F . 3d 1331, 1335 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) ( c ita tio n , q u o ta tio n m a rk s , a n d a lte r a tio n s o m itte d ) . W e rev i ew a d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d eci si o n o n “ co m p et en cy t o st an d tri al as a fa c t f i ndi ng s ubj e c tt o r e ve r s a l onl y forc l e a re rr or . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H oga n, 986 F . 2d 13 64 , 13 71 (11th C i r. 19 93 ) ( re vi ew i ng ou r C i rc ui t ’ s pre ce denton the prop er s ta n d a r d o f

r e v ie w fo ram o tio n fo rc o m p e te n c y to s ta n d tr ia l) . I I I . D i s c u s s i on W e f i r s te xa m i ne w he the rthe m a gi s tr a t e j udge pr ope r l y pl a c e d the bur de n of pr oof on I z qui e r do. A . B u r d e n of

p r oof A d e fe n d a n t- m o v a n t c le a r ly h a s th e b u r d e n o n am o tio n to w ith d r a w ag u ilty pl ea . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. B uckl es , 84 3 F . 2d 46 9, 47 1 (11 th C i r. 19 88 ). T hat b u r d e n d o e s n o t s h if

t to th e g o v e r n m e n t w h e n th e b a s is o f th e w ith d r a w a l m o tio n is i ncom pet ency atthe t i m e of the pl ea . S ee i d. (not i ng thateven i n a ca se i n w hi ch the defendantatt em pt ed t o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl eai n p ar tbeca use of hi s “ m ent al i m pa i r m e ntr e s ul t i ng f

r om aphy s i c a l i l l ne s s , ” the de fe nda ntha d “ the bur de n of s h o w in g a‘fa ira n d ju s t r e a s o n ’ fo rw ith d r a w a l o f h is p le a ” ) . T h is is e s p e c ia lly18

tr u e h e r e , w h e r e n o c o n c e r n s a b o u tI z q u i e r d o ’ s c o mp e t e n c y w e r e r a i s e d a tth e t i me of the gu i l ty pl eaand t he di stri ctcourtcond uct ed a pl eacol l oq uy and m ade a f in d in g th a t I z q u ie r d o w a s c o m p e te n t to e n te rh is p le a . F ur the r , the r e l e va ntc om pe t e nc y s t a tut e a r gua bl y c ont e m pl a t e s tha tthe bur de n w i l l l i e w i th the pa r ty m a ki ng am ot i on t o de t e r m i ne c om pe t e nc y . 18 U .S .C . § 4 2 4 1 . S p e c if

ic a lly , 1 8 U .S .C . § 4 2 4 1 ( a ) p r o v id e s th a t [a] tan y t i m e aft er th e co m m en cem en to f a p ro secu t i o n fo r an o ffen se a nd pr i ort o the s e nt e nc i ng of the de fe nda nt , the de fe nda ntorthe a tto r n e y fo rth e G o v e r n m e n t m a y f ile am o tio n fo rah e a r in g to d e te r m in e th e m e n ta l c o m p e te n c y o f th e d e fe n d a n t. T h e c o u r t s h a ll gr a ntthe m ot i on . . . i f

the r e i s r e a s ona bl e c a us e t o be l i e ve tha tthe defe nd antm ay pres ent l y be s uffe ri ng fr om a m ent al di se as e or def ec t r e n d e r in g h im m e n ta lly in c o m p e te n t to th e e x te n t th a t h e is u n a b le to u n d erst an d th e n atu re an d co n seq u en ces o f th e p ro ceed i n g s ag ai n st h im o rto a s s is t p r o p e r ly in h is d e fe n s e . 18 U . S . C . § 4 24 1(a) . M oreover, the S up re m e C ou rthas s t at ed, al bei ti n d i ct a, that the bur de n of

e s t a bl i s hi ng i nc om pe t e nc e r e s t s w i th the de fe nda nt . S e e C oope rv. O kl ahom a, 51 7 U . S . 34 8, 36 2, 11 6 S . C t . 13 73 , 13 80 (199 6) (“ C on gres s has d i rect ed th atth e accu sed i n a fed eral p ro secu t i o n m u stp ro v e i n co m p et en ce b y a prepon dera nce of the evi dence. ”) (c i t i ng 18 U . S . C . § 4 24 1); se e a l so U ni t ed S t at es v. R ob i nson , 40 4 F . 3d 85 0, 85 6 (4th C i r. ) ( “ U nd erfe dera l l aw , the defendanthas the bur de n . . . ‘ [ t o s how ] tha tthe de fe nda nti s . . . m e nt a l l y i nc om pe t e nt . ’ ” ) ( c i t i ng 18 U . S . C . § 4241 a nd C oope r ) , c e r t . de ni e d, __ U . S . __, __ U . S . __, 126 S . C t . 288,In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), w e 6 adopte d a s b indingpre c e dent all de c isi on s o f theformer Fif th C irc uit that w ererendere d pri or

to October 1, 1981. In United States v. Makris, 483 F .2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1973) (“ Makris I”), thedefendant 7 (Makris) was c harg ed with per jury based on his testimony

before SEC. Beforetestifying before the SEC, Makris had brain surg ery . Thus, “[p] rior to trial, the c ourt on the g overnment’s motion app ointe d a

highly qu alif ie d p syc hiatrist

. . . toe xami neMakris andreport to thec ourt

onhis competenc y

to understand the procee dings ag ainst him and to properly assist in his own defense.” Ma

kris I , 483 F.2d at 1089. Makris also filed a motion to s uppress his testimony (c laimi ngins anity

at thetimeof

theperj ury

of fens e ), whic h w a s de nie d. Makris pro c e e de d to trial and wa s convicted. In Makris I , our pre dece ssor court affirme d the district court’s conclusion that Makris was saneat the time of his offense. As to competency at the time of the trial, however, the Makris I court felt constrained to remand, bec ause thedistrict court had f ailed to conduct a f

ormal competency

hearing a s require d by

the competency

statute, and the ps yc hiatrist ’s report

“ indic ate d a

subs tanti al po ssibility” that Ma kris w a s in c omp etent at th etime of trial. Id. at 1090-92. Onremand , thedis tric t c ourt c on du c te d a

c omp etenc y

he ari ngandc on c lude d th at Ma kris wa s c omp etent to s tandtrial at th etime . M akris a pp e ale d ag ain, arguin g , amon gother thin g s, that th eg ov ernment s ho uldhavebe e n re qu ire d toprov ehis inc omp etenc y beyon d a re a so na ble doubt. Makris II , 535 F.2d at 905-06. Our predec essor c ourt disagree d, concludingthat although “in fe deral criminal ca ses the g overnment has the burden of proving[the] defendant competent to stand trial” at the competency hearing,”the g overnment only had to establish the 19 1 2 6 S . C t. 4 6 9 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . A l though S upr e m e C our tpr e c e de ntpoi nt s i n tha tdi r e c t i on, ourpr e de c e s s or c our tha s s t a t e d tha t“ [ t ] he r e c a n be no que s t i on tha ti n fe de r a l c r i m i na l c a s e s the gove r nm e ntha s the bur de n of pr ovi ng [ a ] de fe nda ntc om pe t e ntt o s t a nd tr i a l a tthe [c om pet ency ] hear i ng . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. M akri s, 53 5 F . 2d 89 9, 90 6 (5th C i r. 1976) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ( “ M a kr i s I I ” ) . H ow e ve r , M a kr i s I I i s noton poi nt 6 beca use i ti nv ol ved t he go vernm ent ’ s pre -tri al m ot i on t o d et er m i ne the com pet ency o f th e d e fe n d a n t, a n d d id n o t in v o lv e ad e fe n d a n t’s m o tio n to w ith d r a w ag u ilty p l ea b ased o n i n co m p et en cy. 7defendant’s competenceby a preponderance of

the evidenc e. Id. at 906. In 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 4244 was replaced by 18 U.S.C. § 4241. 8 20 M or e i m por t a nt l y , the c om pe t e nc y s t a tut e i n M a kr i s I I , 18 U . S . C . § 4244, w a s adi f fe r e nts t a tut e w i th di f

fe r e ntl a ngua ge tha n the c om pe t e nc y s t a tut e a ti s s ue here . S ec t i on 42 44 , w hi l e a l so al l ow i ng com pet ency m ot i on s t o b e f i l ed by ei ther 8 th e g o v e r n m e n t o rth e d e fe n d a n t, p la c e d m o r e e m p h a s is o n th e g o v e r n m e n t’s r o le i n fi l i ng an i ncom pet ency m ot i on . S ee 18 U . S . C . § 4 24 4 (19 49 ) ( “ W henever af t er a rr e s ta nd pr i ort o the i m pos i t i on of s e nt e nc e orpr i ort o the e xpi r a t i on of a ny peri od of prob ati on the U ni t ed S t at es A tt orney has re as on abl e c ause t o b el i eve that ape r s on c ha r ge d w i th a n of fe ns e a ga i ns tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s m a y be pr e s e nt l y i ns a ne orothe r w i s e s o m e nt a l l y i nc om pe t e nta s t o be una bl e t o unde r s t a nd the proceedi ng s a gai nsthi m or prop er l y t o ass i sti n h i s ow n d ef ense , he shal l fi l e a m o tio n fo raju d ic ia l d e te r m in a tio n o f s u c h m e n ta l c o m p e te n c y o f th e a c c u s e d . . . . U po n such a m ot i on or up on a s i m i l arm ot i on i n b ehal f of the ac cuse d . . . . ”) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tM a kr i s I I i s m a t e r i a l l y di s t i ngui s ha bl e , a nd B u c k le s is m o r e o n p o in t. H e r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t fo u n d I z q u ie r d o c o m p e te n t to e n te rh is g u ilty p le a , a n d th is c a s e is b e fo r e u s o n ly o n I z q u ie r d o ’s o w n m o tio n to w i thdr a w hi s gui l ty pl e a . A s s uc h, w e ne e d notr e s ol ve w he r e the bur de n of pr oof21

l i es i n si tuat i on s other than t he narrow on e before thi s C ou rt . In l i gh tof C oo per, B uckl es , and 1 8 U . S . C . § 4 24 1, w e c on cl ud e onl y thati n the parti cul ar c i r c um s t a nc e s of

thi s c a s e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n pl a c i ng the bur de n of pr oof on I z qui e r do a s t o hi s ow n m ot i on t o w i thdr a w hi s gui l ty pl e aba s e d on in c o m p e te n c y . B. Ex pe r to pi ni o ns G i ve n tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc orr e c t l y a l l oc a t e d the bur de n of pr oof , w e ne xt c o n s id e rI z q u ie r d o ’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to w ith d r a w h is p le ao f g u ilty . I z q u ie r d o ’s m a in c o n te n tio n is tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n r e j e c t i ng H a be r ’ s opi ni on a nd i n c ons i de r i ng L u c k in g ’s r e v is e d o p in io n a s to I z q u ie r d o ’s c o m p e te n c y a t th e tim e o f h is p le a . A d is tr ic t c o u r t’s c o m p e te n c y d e te r m in a tio n is p r im a r ily fa c tu a l in n a tu r e . S e e H o g a n , 9 8 6 F .2 d a t 1 3 7 1 . M o r e o v e r , in H o g a n , w h ic h in v o lv e d ac h a lle n g e to the di stri ctcourt ’ s f

i nd i ng thatthe defendantw as com pet ent , thi s C ou rtconcl ud ed th a t “‘[ a ] f

in d in g o f fa c t is c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s o n ly w h e n w e a r e le f t w ith ad e f

in ite a nd f i r m c onvi c t i on tha tam i s t a ke ha s be e n c om m i tt e d. ’ ” I d. a t1372 ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). W e f

urther i nd i ca t ed thati n revi ew i ng a di stri ctcourt ’ s f i nd i ng s of fac t fo r cl ear erro r, w e m u stg i v e “ ‘ d u e reg ard ’ t o th e tri al co u rt ’ s o p p o rtu n i ty t o assess th e c re d ib il ity o f w itn es se s,” a n d n o ted th at o u r r ev iew o f a d istrict co u rt’s22

c o m p e te n c y d e te r m in a tio n is “d e fe r e n tia l.” I d . ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T h e r e c o r d h e r e c o n ta in s e x p e r t o p in io n s th a t d if fe rin th e irc o n c lu s io n s a s to Iz qu i er do ’ s c om pet ence . “ W here there ar e t w o p er m i ss i bl e vi ew s of the evi dence, the fa c t f i nde r ’ s c hoi c e be t w e e n the m c a nnotbe c l e a r l y e rr one ous . ” A nde r s on v. C i t y o f B essem er C i ty, 4 7 0 U . S . 5 6 4 , 5 7 4 , 1 0 5 S . C t . 1 5 0 4 , 1 5 1 1 (1 9 8 5 ); see al so U ni t ed S t at es v. D e V ar on , 17 5 F . 3d 93 0, 94 5 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ). G i ven t he di ff

er entexpertop i ni on s, Iz qu i er do m ai nl y argues thatthe di stri ct co u rterred i n co n si d eri n g L u ck i n g ’ s rev i sed o p i n i o n . W e d i sag ree. H ere, th e F i rst FM C Re p o r tr e f

l e c t s th a te v e n a tth e t i me o f th e f i r s te v a l u a t i o n , Lu c k i n g h a d s o me c o n c e r n s a b o u tI z q u i e r d o p o s s i b l y m a l i n g e r i n g . S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n th e F i r s tF MC R eport , L ucki ng no t ed thatIz qu i er do had p er form ed w orse on the R A V L T than m ode r a t e l y i m pa i r e d A l z he i m e r ’ s a nd P a r ki ns on’ s di s e a s e pa t i e nt s ; tha tI z qui e r do m ay have been exaggerati ng hi s l evel of i m pai rm enton the B C T ; and t hat Iz qu i er do ’ s per form ance on the V IP “ prob abl y [ di d] no tre fl ec thi s true abi l i ty. ” T hu s, i ti s notsurpri si ng thataf t erL ucki ng w as pres ent ed w i th D i az ’ s t es t i m on y a t the f i r s tc om pe t e nc y he a r i ng, L uc ki ng w a nt e d t o r e t e s ta nd r e e va l ua t e hi s da t aa nd o p in io n ab o u t Izq u ierd o . It i s u n d isp u ted th at L u ck in g w as u n aw ar e o f D iaz’s al l egati on s a tthe t i m e he ori gi nal l y e xam i ned Izqui er do , and t hatL ucki ng w as onl y i nfor m e d of

D i a z ’ s s t or y on the da t e of the f i r s tc om pe t e nc y he a r i ng. L uc ki ng23

ca nd i dl y a dm i tt ed thathe needed t o p er form addi t i on al t es t i ng beca use of the new i n fo r m a t i o n . L u c k i n g th e n c o n d u c t e d a d d i ti o n a l t e s t i n g , a n d th e S e c o n d F MC R e por ta de qua t e l y e xpl a i ns w hy L uc ki ng r e vi s e d hi s pr e vi ous opi ni on a nd found I z qui e r do c om pe t e nt . W e a l s o not e tha tH a be r , aps y c hol ogi s t , s pe ntam a xi m um o f te n h o u r s e x a m in in g I z q u ie r d o o n tw o d if fe r e n t d a y s . B y c o n tr a s t, L u c k in g , a psyc hi atri st , stud i ed Iz qu i er do for s ever al m on ths du ri ng Iz qu i er do ’ s s t ay s a t B ut ne ra nd ha d the be ne f i tof the obs e r va t i ons a nd i nfor m a t i on c ol l e c t e d a bout Iz qu i er do by hi s forensi c t ea m . L ucki ng un di sput edl y e xam i ned Izqui er do m ore c lo s e ly th a n d id H a b e r , a n d h e p r o v id e d ar e a s o n a b le e x p la n a tio n fo rc h a n g in g h is o p in io n . A s s u c h , w e c a n n o t s a y th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m m itte d c le a re rr o rin c r e d itin g L u c k in g ’s r e v is e d o p in io n th a t I z q u ie r d o w a s c o m p e te n t. F u rth erm o re, th e d i stri ctco u rtw as n o tb o u n d b y H ab er’ s o p i n i o n o r th e F i rst F M C R e por t . I ti s w e l l - s e tt l e d tha te xpe r topi ni on a s t o c om pe t e nc y i s notbi ndi ng on the tr i e rof

fa c ti f the r e i s r e a s on t o di s c ounti t . S tr i c kl a nd v. F r a nc i s , 738 F . 2d 15 42 , 15 52 (11th C i r. 19 84 ). H er e, the m agi stra t e j ud ge’ s R & R , w hi ch the di stri ct c o u r t a d o p te d , p r o v id e d c o g e n t r e a s o n s fo rd is c o u n tin g H a b e r ’s o p in io n . M or e ove r , a s di s c us s e d a bove , the r e w a s a m pl e r e a s on forL uc ki ng’ s c ha nge of op i ni on fr om the F i rs tF M C R eportt o the S ec on d F M C R eport . T he di stri ctcourt di d n otcl earl y e rri n rej ec t i ng H aber ’ s opi ni on , i n cre di t i ng L ucki ng ’ s r evi se d24

o p in io n , a n d in f

in d in g I z q u ie r d o c o m p e te n t. I V . C on c l u s i on F o r th e fo re g o in g re as o n s, w e a ff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s d en ial o f I zq u ierd o ’s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw h i s g u i l ty p l ea an d , i n tu rn , affi rm h i s co n v i ct i o n s. AF F I RME D.