United States v. Jones

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4404
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES E. JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:05-cr-00331-CCB)
Submitted: September 12, 2007 Decided: September 24, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Gary W. Christopher, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Gregory
Welsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James E. Jones was convicted by a jury of two counts of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and was sentenced to 262 months’
imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100
assessment. On appeal, he argues (1) that the district court erred
in finding him competent to stand trial, and (2) that the district
court abused its discretion in excluding him from the courtroom
during his jury trial. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
This court reviews a district court’s competency
determination for clear error. United States v. Cox, 964 F.2d
1431, 1433 (4th Cir. 1992). A defendant shall be considered
incompetent if the district court finds, “by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant is presently suffering from a mental
disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent
that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the
proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense.” 18
U.S.C. § 4241(d) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). The defendant bears the
burden of establishing his incompetence. United States v.
Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 856 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 916(2005).
Jones’ statements indicate that he is among a growing
number of prisoners adhering to a “flesh and blood” sovereign man
philosophy. See United States v. Mitchell, 405 F. Supp. 2d 602,
- 2 -
603-06 (D. Md. 2005) (describing the theory, its sources, and its
anti-government movement predecessors). Adherence to an ill-
advised, self-defeating legal strategy does not indicate
incompetence to stand trial. United States v. Banks, 482 F.3d 733(4th Cir. 2007). Competency determinations turn only on the
capacity to understand and assist, and not on the willingness to do
so. See Bell v. Evatt, 72 F.3d 421, 432 (4th Cir. 1995). The
district court found Jones competent based on the unrebutted report
of the mental health staff at the Federal Correctional Institution
in Butner, North Carolina, which issued after six weeks of
observation and evaluation. That medical report is persuasive
evidence. See United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 398 (4th
Cir. 2002). We therefore find no error in the district court’s
competency determination.
Jones also challenges the district court’s order
excluding him from the courtroom for disruptive behavior during his
trial. We review that order for abuse of discretion. See
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343 (1970). “[A] defendant can
lose his right to be present at trial if, after he has been warned
by the judge that he will be removed if he continues his disruptive
behavior, he nevertheless insists on conducting himself in a manner
so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that his
trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom.” Id.; Fed.
- 3 -
R. Crim. P. 43(c). Based on our review of the record, we find that
Jones’ exclusion from the courtroom was not an abuse of discretion.
We therefore affirm Jones’ convictions and sentence. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -