U.S. v. TIMMONS, 12-50067. (2013)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20130611637
Visitors: 22
Filed: May 10, 2013
Latest Update: May 10, 2013
Summary: MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ERIN L. SETSER, Magistrate Judge. On May 10, 2013, the undersigned conducted a detention hearing in this matter. Prior to the commencement of the detention hearing, the undersigned inquired of counsel for the Government and the Defendant as to whether they had any objection to the finding of competency rendered in the evaluation report dated April 17, 2013. Counsel advised that they did not object to the competency finding and did not believe a hea
Summary: MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ERIN L. SETSER, Magistrate Judge. On May 10, 2013, the undersigned conducted a detention hearing in this matter. Prior to the commencement of the detention hearing, the undersigned inquired of counsel for the Government and the Defendant as to whether they had any objection to the finding of competency rendered in the evaluation report dated April 17, 2013. Counsel advised that they did not object to the competency finding and did not believe a hear..
More
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ERIN L. SETSER, Magistrate Judge.
On May 10, 2013, the undersigned conducted a detention hearing in this matter. Prior to the commencement of the detention hearing, the undersigned inquired of counsel for the Government and the Defendant as to whether they had any objection to the finding of competency rendered in the evaluation report dated April 17, 2013. Counsel advised that they did not object to the competency finding and did not believe a hearing on the issue was warranted.
Accordingly, the undersigned recommends finding, based upon the uncontested evaluation, that the Defendant is competent to proceed in this matter, as he appears to have sufficient ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of understanding and to possess a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. See Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960); United States v. Ghane, 490 F.3d 1036, 1040-41 (8th Cir. 2007).
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
