U.S. v. LEONARD, 1:14-CR-42. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20150303d03
Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 03, 2015
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WILLIAM B. CARTER , Magistrate Judge . A December 4, 2014, letter from Mike Babcock, Warden of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Detention Center in Houston, Texas was received by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Attached to the letter were an Evaluation of Competency and a Forensic Report. It is the opinion of the examiner that "Defendant currently appears competent to proceed. With respect to the issue of responsibility, the Defendant does not appear to suf
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION WILLIAM B. CARTER , Magistrate Judge . A December 4, 2014, letter from Mike Babcock, Warden of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Detention Center in Houston, Texas was received by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Attached to the letter were an Evaluation of Competency and a Forensic Report. It is the opinion of the examiner that "Defendant currently appears competent to proceed. With respect to the issue of responsibility, the Defendant does not appear to suff..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
WILLIAM B. CARTER, Magistrate Judge.
A December 4, 2014, letter from Mike Babcock, Warden of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Detention Center in Houston, Texas was received by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Attached to the letter were an Evaluation of Competency and a Forensic Report. It is the opinion of the examiner that "Defendant currently appears competent to proceed. With respect to the issue of responsibility, the Defendant does not appear to suffer from a severe mental disease or defect that would have impaired her ability to appreciate the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of her behavior at the time of the offense." (Doc. 50 at 19).
A Notice of Waiver of Competency Hearing signed by defendant was filed on February 2, 2015 (Doc. 58). The Court therefore RECOMMENDS on the basis of the waiver and the Reports that defendant be found competent to stand trial.1
FootNotes
1. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of a copy of this recommended disposition on the objecting party. Such objections must conform to the requirements of Rule 59(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Failure to file objections within the time specified waives the right to appeal the District Court's order. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 88 L.Ed.2d 435, 106 S.Ct. 466 (1985). The district court need not provide de novo review where objections to this report and recommendation are frivolous, conclusive or general. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636 (6th Cir. 1986). Only specific objections are reserved for appellate review. Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987).
Source: Leagle
