Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Alexander VIANEZ, a.k.a. Nauj, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-11
Citations: 446 F. App'x 905
Docket Number: No. 10-30282
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Alexander VIANEZ, a.k.a. Nauj, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 905–906

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Alexander VIANEZ, a.k.a. Nauj, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-30282.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
Filed Aug. 11, 2011.
Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Ye-Ting Woo, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, Matthew H. Thomas, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USTA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tacoma, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roger A. Hunko, Law Offices of Wecker A. Hunko, Port Orchard, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. 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
Juan Alexander Vianez appeals from the 240-month sentence imposed following his jury conviction for various crimes, including sex trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Vianez contends that the hearing held by the district court was inadequate to determine if he was competent to proceed with sentencing and that a full competency hearing was required. In light of the evidence before the district court, there was no reasonable cause to believe that the defendant was unable to understand the nature of the proceedings or to participate intelligently in them. See Chavez v. United States, 656 F.2d 512, 517-18 (9th Cir.1981) (stating standard for competency determinations at sentencing). Thus, the district court did not err by not conducting a full competency hearing. See 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a); United States v. Brown, 943 F.2d 35, 35 (9th Cir.1991) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.