Thomas Holt appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Following our careful review, we agree with the district court that Mr. Holt failed to establish in this habeas proceeding that he was incompetent and his plea was involuntary in January 1987 when he pleaded guilty to murder. See Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975) (test for mental competency to stand trial); Shafer v. Bowersox, Nos. 329 F.3d 637 (8th Cir. 2003) (habeas standard of review; analysis for determining guilty plea’s validity); Reynolds v. Norris, 86 F.3d 796, 800-01 (8th Cir. 1996) (due process requirements; burden on petitioner). We reach this conclusion notwithstanding the retrospective opinion of a forensic psychologist stated in a November 2000 report, the July 2001 acknowledgment by one of the two mental health professionals who found Mr. Holt competent in 1986 that he had made an incorrect diagnosis as to the nature of Mr. Holt’s mental illness, and the treatment notes of prison mental health professionals. See Weisberg v. Minnesota, 29 F.3d 1271, 1278 (8th Cir. 1994) (retrospective determinations of defendant’s competency to plead guilty strongly disfavored), cert, denied, 513 U.S. 1126, 115 S.Ct. 935, 130 L.Ed.2d 880 (1995).

*386 Accordingly, we deny Mr. Holt’s pro se motion to dismiss this appeal, and we affirm the judgment of the district court denying habeas relief.

A true copy.