United States v. Melos-Fernandez

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
May 7, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50672
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PEDRO MELOS-FERNANDEZ, also known as Miguel Rodriguez-Salazar,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-02-CR-134-DB
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pedro Melos-Fernandez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction
for illegal reentry into the United States, in violation of 8
U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his guilty plea was invalid because
he was not legally competent to enter an informed plea at the time
of his rearraignment hearing. The test for determining if a
defendant is competent to enter a guilty plea is “whether he has

-- 1 of 2 --

1 Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted).
2 United States v. Dockins, 986 F.2d 888, 890 (5th Cir. 1993).
2
sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a
reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a
rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings
against him.”1 The district court’s determination that Melos-
Fernandez was competent may not be set aside on review unless it
was clearly arbitrary or unwarranted.2
The record indicates that Melos-Fernandez was not under the
influence of drugs, alcohol, or prescription medication at the time
of the rearraignment hearing and that he and his defense counsel
believed him to be competent to enter an informed guilty plea.
Additionally, the record reveals that any other physical problems
from which Melos-Fernandez might have been suffering did not
compromise his competency at that time. Accordingly, the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --