context: J.A. 51. In such circumstances, the district court acted well within its discretion in not ordering a competency hearing on its own motion.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 306 F.3d 1233, 1233-34
citation_a.parenthetical: identifying no abuse of discretion in failure sua sponte to order hearing because district court's observations and defense counsel's assurances as to defendant's competence "overcome any reasonable doubt ... that may have been raised by his statement that he felt dizzy" from taking wrong medication
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d at 1233-34 (identifying no abuse of discretion in failure sua sponte to order hearing because district court’s observations and defense counsel’s assurances as to defendant’s competence “overcome any reasonable doubt ... that may have been raised by his statement that he felt dizzy” from taking wrong medication); cf. United States v. Graves, 98 F.3d 258, 261-62 (7th Cir.1996) (concluding district court should have ordered sua sponte competency hearing where defendant suffered stroke that caused him “serious difficulty speaking and some paralysis, and ... some impairment of memory and understanding” when conversing with court).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 98 F.3d 258, 261-62
citation_b.parenthetical: concluding district court should have ordered sua sponte competency hearing where defendant suffered stroke that caused him "serious difficulty speaking and some paralysis, and ... some impairment of memory and understanding" when conversing with court
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d at 1233-34 (identifying no abuse of discretion in failure sua sponte to order hearing because district court’s observations and defense counsel’s assurances as to defendant’s competence “overcome any reasonable doubt ... that may have been raised by his statement that he felt dizzy” from taking wrong medication); cf. United States v. Graves, 98 F.3d 258, 261-62 (7th Cir.1996) (concluding district court should have ordered sua sponte competency hearing where defendant suffered stroke that caused him “serious difficulty speaking and some paralysis, and ... some impairment of memory and understanding” when conversing with court).