United States v. White, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4095

White was indicted in the Eastern District of California for conducting the affairs of an enterprise through racketeering, conspiracy to do so, and violent crimes in aid of racketeering, tied to the Pitch Dark Family gang with alleged murders and narcotics offenses.
Between indictment and trial, co-defendants pleaded guilty; the district court conducted a §4241 competency hearing in 2005, finding reasonable cause to believe White was incompetent and remanded him, severing him from co-defendants.
White returned from Butner in May 2006; doctors certified he was competent to stand trial, though noting anger management issues.
White’s counsel changed from Rivera to Long (May 2006) and then Mahle; White repeatedly disrupted proceedings and refused to cooperate with counsel at various hearings in 2007.
During trial, White was removed multiple times for disruptive conduct but attended jury selection and opened statements; the court conducted several hearings regarding his behavior and counsel relationships.
The district court did not conduct a second sua sponte competency hearing after the 2006 finding of competence; White appeals, arguing the court should have sua sponte ordered a second hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in not ordering a second competency hearing sua sponte	White contends bona fide doubt existed after his return from Butner.	The government argues no abuse; evidence showed competence to understand proceedings and assist defense.	No abuse; discretion to forego second hearing affirmed.
Whether there was sufficient bona fide doubt White lacked ability to understand proceedings	Record suggested possible delusions and disruption undermining comprehension.	Butner certification and court interactions showed understanding of proceedings and penalties.	Insufficient bona fide doubt to require second hearing.
Whether there was sufficient evidence White could assist in his defense	Anger, erratic behavior, and controversy with counsel indicated impairment in assisting defense.	Butner report and counsel observed cooperation and ability to plan defense; disruption was voluntary or behavioral, not incapacity to assist.	No proven impairment preventing assistance; court did not err.

Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (capacity to understand proceedings and assist counsel required for trial)
Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (test for competency: rational understanding and ability to consult)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (due process requires competency hearing when evidence raises doubt)
de Kaplany v. Enomoto, 540 F.2d 975 (9th Cir.1976) (abuse-of-discretion review for failure to conduct competency hearing when bona fide doubt exists)
Maxwell v. Roe, 606 F.3d 561 (9th Cir.2010) (bona fide doubt standard for sua sponte competency hearing)
United States v. Clark, 617 F.2d 180 (9th Cir.1980) (post-initial-competence determination, second hearing rests in district court discretion)