Opinion ID: 822821
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Competency at Trial

Text: Bankoff argues that the District Court erred by refusing on remand to revisit the issue of his competency to stand trial. In his first appeal, Bankoff did not challenge the District Court’s finding that he was competent to stand trial. Because the issue could and should have been raised in his first appeal, Bankoff failed to preserve the issue for review. See United States v. Pultrone, 241 F.3d 306, 307-08 (3d Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 222 (3d Cir. 2005) (explaining failure to identify or argue an issue in opening brief constitutes waiver of that issue on appeal). Moreover, the issue of Bankoff’s competency was not within the scope of remand, which was limited to consideration of the outstanding sufficiency challenge to Count Three and resentencing. We are thus without jurisdiction to review the argument now. See Pultrone, 241 F.3d at 308.