United States v. Gurmeet Bisla

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 12-10609
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:08-cr-00212-AWI-4
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GURMEET SINGH BISLA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 12, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RICE, District
Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Thomas O. Rice, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.
Gurmeet Bisla appeals the district court’s finding, following a hearing, that
he was competent to stand trial and be sentenced. We review that finding for clear
error and must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.
United States v. Frank, 956 F.2d 872, 874-75 (9th Cir. 1992). Under this standard,
defendants must do more than just argue that the district court picked the wrong
expert: “[A] district court is free to assign greater weight to the findings of experts
produced by the Government than to opposing opinions of the medical witnesses
produced by the defendant . . . . Clear error is not demonstrated by pointing to
conflicting evidence in the record.” Id. at 875 (citing United States v. Lindley, 774
F.2d 993, 993 (9th Cir. 1985)). We affirm because that is all Bisla has done.
Bisla’s competence received an enormous amount of attention. Bisla’s
competency proceedings took two years and eight months; from March 2010, when
he filed his competency motion, until November 2012, when the district court
finally declared him competent. In that time, the district court considered (1) three
reports from Bisla’s expert, Dr. Terrell; (2) one report from the government’s
expert, Dr. Howsepian; (3) three days worth of testimony from Dr. Terrell, Dr.
Howsepian, Bisla’s original attorney (who testified that he thought Bisla was
competent), and others; and (4) a final report from a team of doctors at the Federal
2
Medical Facility in Butner, North Carolina. The Butner team observed Bisla in
custody for more than half a year.
Both judges involved took Bisla’s competency very seriously. (The case
was transferred after the first judge retired.) The first judge, even after holding
three days worth of hearings, still ordered Bisla committed to the Attorney
General’s custody for further evaluation. When Bisla returned from Butner with
the facility’s certificate of competence, the second judge delayed sentencing for
two months so that Dr. Terrell would have one last chance to evaluate Bisla.
To challenge the product of all this effort, Bisla makes a single argument:
That the second judge erred by relying on the Butner doctors. This amounts to
saying that the district court believed the wrong doctor. Frank, 956 F.2d at 875.
Clear error review demands more.
AFFIRMED.
3