FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOV 18, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 10 29 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 7- 00 02 8- CR-3 -MC R UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us TERESA ANN CRAWFORD, a.k .a. Heid i P. Ward, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (No ve m ber 1 8, 2 00 8) Befo re TJ OFLAT, CARNES andW ILSON, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Teres a Ann Crawfo rd , who ha s b eenin di ct edform ul ti pl e o ffen se s in cl ud in g i m

pe rs on at io n o f anoff

ic er o f th e Uni te d S ta te s, an Air Fo rce c ol on el , was fou ndby the di st ric t co urt, p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 42 41 (d ), to be in co m pe te nt to st an d t ria l an d c omm it te d t o t he cu st ody of t he Att orne y

Gene ral . Crawfo rd
no w app eal s the co m

m it m en t o rd er, co nt en di ng th atth e co urt p la cedun du e wei gh t on th e ex pe rt o pi ni on of Dr. R ob ertGreg g, wh os e th eo rie s re ga rd in g in co m pe te nc y are al le ge dl y

in co ns is te nt . She als o c on te nd s tha t h er b eh av io r whi le tes ti fy in g a t h er co m pe te nc y he ari ng pro ve d t ha t s he was m en ta ll y co m pe te nt . W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t a d efen da ntis in co m pe te nt to st an d t ria l fo r cl ear e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Izqui erd o, 4 48 F.3d12 69 , 12 76 (11 th Ci r. 20 06 ). A factua l fi nd in g i s cl earl y erro ne ou s o nl y

when th e rev ie win g c ou rt i s le ft wi th a de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b eenco m mitte d. Un it ed St at es v. Ro y , 86 9 F .2d14 27 , 14 29 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). The Due P ro ces s C laus e o f th e Fi fth Am en dm en t p ro hi bi ts th e g ov ern m en t fro m trying a de fen da ntwho is in co m pe te nt . Uni te d S ta te s v . Rah im , 43 1 F .3d 75 3, 7 59 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). “ Fo r a d efen da ntto be co m pe te ntto st an d t ria l, h e m us t ha ve ‘ su ffi ci en t p res en t ab il ity to co ns ul t wi th hi s l awy er wi th a reas on ab le de gr ee of rat io na l u nd ers tand in g . . . [an d] ha [v e] a rati on al as we ll as f actua l 2un de rs tand in g o f th e p ro ceed in gs ag ai ns t h im .” Id . (ci ta ti on om it te d) . “ Whe th er

th e d efen da ntis co m

pe te ntis anon go in g i nqui ry ” as he m us t b e co m

pe te ntat a ll st ag es of t ria l, i nc lu di ng sen te nc in g. Id . A dis tri ctco urt s ha ll co m m ita de fen da nt to th e cu st ody

of the Att orne y

Gene ral if, af

te r a h eari ng , th e co urt fi nd s b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the de fen da ntis “pr es en tl y su ffer in g fr om

a m en ta l d is eas e o r de fectren de rin g h im m en ta ll y in co m pe te ntto th e ex te ntth athe is un ab le to un de rs tandth e n atur e an d c on se qu en ces of t he pro ceed in gs ag ai ns t hi m or t o a ss is t p ro pe rly in h is de fen se .” 18 U.S.C. § 4 24 1( d) . The g ov ern m en t be ars th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g ade fen da ntco m pe te nt . See Un it edSta te s v . Makris , 53 5 F .2d89 9, 9 06 (5t h C ir. 1 97 6)
. Here, the ev id en ce b efo re the di st ric t co urt s up po rte d afin di ng th at Crawf or d d idno t h av e a s uf

fic ie ntab il ity

to co ns ul t wi th he r la wy er “ with a
reas on ab le de gr ee o f rat io na l u nd ers ta nd in g . . . [an d] ha [v e] a rati on al as we ll as factua l u nd ers tand in g o f th e p ro ceed in gs ag ai ns t [h er].” See Rah im , 43 1 F .3dat 75 9. Th eref

or e, th e d is tri ctco urt’s i nc om pe te nc y fin di ng was n otcle arl y erro ne ou s. AFFIRMED.

3