Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Alberto Martinez FRANCO, aka Jose Luis Galicias-Camacho, aka Luis, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-15
Citations: 569 F. App'x 535
Docket Number: No. 13-30011
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Alberto Martinez FRANCO, aka Jose Luis Galicias-Camacho, aka Luis, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 569
Pages: 535–535

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Alberto Martinez FRANCO, aka Jose Luis Galicias-Camacho, aka Luis, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-30011.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 10, 2014.
Filed April 15, 2014.
Stephanie Joyce Lister, Assistant U.S., USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Spokane, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jeffry Keith Finer, Senior Litigating, Spokane, WA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BEA, 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
While Franco's conduct at his sentencing hearing was perhaps strange, "unusual behavior alone [is] insufficient to create a genuine doubt as to his competency." United States v. Dreyer, 705 F.3d 951, 963 (9th Cir.2013). As the trial judge—who'd monitored Franco's conduct over the course of eight months and two trials— noted, Franco's behavior at the hearing was more likely indicative of recalcitrance than a failure to understand the proceedings. This finding is particularly rational given the complete lack of medical evidence suggesting Franco's incompetence, and the fact that "[d]efense counsel ha[d] not . raised the issue of Defendant's competency prior to the concluding portion of the sentencing proceeding." Under these circumstances, Franco's strange remarks and behavior at sentencing are best understood as a "reasoned choice," id., and don't constitute "substantial evidence casting doubt upon his competency." Moore v. United States, 464 F.2d 663, 666 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.