United States v. Valdovinos-Medina

200 F. App'x 688
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 1, 2006·No. No. 05-30474·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM*

Defendant-Appellant Modesto Valdovinos-Medina appeals his conviction of illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The facts of this case are known to the parties and we do not recite them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm Valdovinos-Medina’s conviction.

Valdovinos-Medina alleges that he was not competent to enter a guilty plea. We have reviewed the record, including the transcripts of the hearings before the district court and the psychologist’s letters to the court. We conclude that Valdovinos[689] Medina’s claim lacks merit. See Steinsvik v. Vinzant, 640 F.2d 949, 952-53 (9th Cir. 1981) (concluding that no “bona fide doubt” existed as to defendant’s competency even where defendant had expressed confusion and was diagnosed as “borderline chronic paranoid schizophrenic”).

Valdovinos-Medina’s remaining contentions also lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Valdovinos-Medina, 200 F. App'x 688 (9th Cir. 2006).

200 F. App'x 688 (United States v. Valdovinos-Medina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders Steinsvik v. Douglas Vinzant
640 F.2d 949 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)