Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James H. BOHOL, a.k.a. Special K, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-08
Citations: 419 F. App'x 730
Docket Number: No. 10-10315
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James H. BOHOL, a.k.a. Special K, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 419
Pages: 730–731

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James H. BOHOL, a.k.a. Special K, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-10315.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011
Filed March 8, 2011.
William Lee Shipley, Jr., Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USH-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stuart Fujioka, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
James H. Bohol appeals from the district court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision on the results of his psychological report. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Bohol contends that the district court clearly erred in finding him mentally incompetent and unable to assist in his defense to allegations that he violated the conditions of his supervised release. The record reflects that the district court carefully followed the procedures set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 4241, before concluding that Bohol demonstrated an adequate understanding of the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him, but suffered from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he was unable to assist properly in his defense. The district court's findings are properly based on the psychological report, expert testimony from the forensic psychologist, and the exhibits received into evidence, and are not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Friedman, 366 F.3d 975, 980-81 (9th Cir.2004).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.