14‐1939 United States v. Nyenekor

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 5th day of June, two thousand fifteen.

PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, PETER W. HALL, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. ____________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

‐v.‐ No. 14‐1939

CARPEAH R. NYENEKOR, SR.,

Defendant‐Appellant.

____________________________________________

1 For Appellee: Scott Hartman, Margaret Garnett, Assistant United States Attorneys, for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY.

For Defendant‐Appellant: Ryan Thomas Truskoski, Harwinton, CT.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Seibel, J.).

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,

ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the order is AFFIRMED.

Defendant‐Appellant Carpeah R. Nyenekor, Sr., appeals from an order

entered on May 28, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York, finding that Nyenekor was suffering from a mental disease

or defect that rendered him mentally incompetent to assist in his defense and,

thus, incompetent to stand trial.

To be considered competent, a defendant must have “(1) sufficient present

ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational

understanding and (2) a rational as well as factual understanding of the

proceedings against him.” United States v. Nichols,

(2d Cir. 1995)

(internal quotation marks omitted). In making a competency determination, the

2 district court may rely on medical opinions, its observation of the defendantʹs

behavior, and other factors. See

.

We review a district court’s competency determination for clear

error. See United States v. Morrison,

(2d Cir. 1998). We identify no

clear error here. The district court’s determination was based on (1) the report

and testimony of a staff psychologist at the Metropolitan Correction Center who

had interviewed Nyenekor on several occasions and had concluded that he was

unable to assist in his own defense; (2) the report of a forensic psychologist

identified by Nyenekor, who concluded that Nyenekor was mentally impaired,

although, in that doctor’s opinion, competent to stand trial; (3) Nyenekor’s own

testimony at the competency hearing; and (4) the court’s observation of

Nyenekor at the competency hearing and in other proceedings. This evidence

supported the district court’s finding that Nyenekor lacked the ability to “consult

with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and a

“rational . . . understanding of the proceedings against him.” Nichols,

.

3 We have considered all of Nyenekor’s arguments, including those raised

in his pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM

the order of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

4