United States of America v. SJARIEFF MCGHEE, AKA Racheed Binyah, AKA John Joe, AKA Sjariefe McGhee, AKA Reese,…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SJARIEFF MCGHEE, AKA Racheed
Binyah, AKA John Joe, AKA Sjariefe
McGhee, AKA Reese, AKA Rieff,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 13-50546
D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00308-DSF-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 6, 2015 **
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
FILED
APR 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th 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).

-- 1 of 5 --

Sjarieff McGhee appeals his conviction for bank fraud and other crimes on
two grounds: (1) the district court committed clear error in finding him competent
to stand trial, and (2) the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion
for a third competency evaluation. We affirm.
The district court made a finding of fact that McGhee was competent to
stand trial based on two expert reports, one prepared by a clinical professor of
psychiatry at the University of Southern California, Dr. Kaushal Sharma, and the
other prepared by a forensic psychologist with the Bureau of Prisons, Dr. Ryan
Nybo. The first report was prepared for a state criminal trial. The second report
was ordered by the district court for the federal trial in which McGhee was
convicted, the conviction he now appeals.
Although McGhee characterizes it in his brief as a request for a second
competency examination, in effect McGhee was seeking a third competency
examination, because the district court considered both expert reports in finding
him competent. Each report indicated that McGhee was competent. In his report,
Dr. Sharma opined, “The defendant is presently competent to stand trial. The
defendant may be suffering from a mental illness; however, his presentation during
2

-- 2 of 5 --

the interview is more consistent with either embellishing or malingering mental
incompetency.” Dr. Sharma noted that McGhee’s alleged state
crimes—masterminding a multi-person scheme to steal gift cards—“[are] highly
consistent with a person who is deceptive, antisocially motivated and has
functioning cognitive thinking.” (emphasis added). Dr. Sharma concluded:
I believe the defendant is a rather smart individual who is trying to be
uncooperative for a conscious purpose perhaps to avoid or delay
criminal proceedings. I do not find any evidence of mental illness and
I believe the presumption of competency cannot be overcome. The
defendant should be considered competent to stand trial.
Dr. Nybo came to similar conclusions. He noted that McGhee “did not meet
criteria for any mental disorders, mental defects, or personality disorders.” Dr.
Nybo continued:
From the available information, there is no evidence to indicate the
defendant suffers from a mental disorder that would substantially
impair his present ability to understand the nature and consequences
of the court proceedings brought against him, or substantially impair
his ability to assist counsel in his defense. It is emphasized he suffers
from no mental illness. Mr. McGhee holds a rigid and
nonconventional interpretation of law, which is not unusual for those
espousing sovereign citizen ideologies. His lack of participation in
the legal process is not a matter of ability, but rather a choice.
A psychiatrist and a psychologist both agreed that McGhee had no mental
disorder rendering him incompetent to stand trial. McGhee presented no medical
evidence that he was incompetent; his claim of incompetency rested on his
3

-- 3 of 5 --

sovereign citizen beliefs, which alone were not sufficient to establish
incompetency. See United States v. Neal, 776 F.3d 645, 657 (9th Cir. 2015).
McGhee’s misguided beliefs were addressed by Dr. Nybo. Dr. Nybo noted that
“[a]lthough [the beliefs] are extreme, they are not of a delusional proportion, as
there are subsets of the population who hold similar beliefs.” The district court
could reasonably accept Drs. Sharma and Nybo’s evaluation of McGhee as correct.
On the record before us, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in
finding McGhee was competent to stand trial.
The next challenge McGhee raises is that the district court abused its
discretion in denying his request for a third competency evaluation. McGhee’s
sovereign citizen defense did not warrant a third evaluation because those beliefs,
as noted, were insufficient to show he was incompetent to stand trial. This is true
even if McGhee acted bizarrely or in ways detrimental to his defense. See Neal,
776 F.3d at 657; see also United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1140 (9th Cir.
2010) (“The record clearly shows that the defendants are fools, but that is not the
same as being incompetent.”). McGhee presented no evidence that would raise
doubt as to his competency beyond what had already been evaluated by Drs.
Sharma and Nybo. The district court had before it the two reports finding McGhee
4

-- 4 of 5 --

competent to stand trial. With both experts in agreement that McGhee was
competent and no evidence in the record indicating incompetency, we cannot say
the district court abused its discretion in denying McGhee a third evaluation.
AFFIRMED.
5

-- 5 of 5 --