United States v. Ronald Huber Wagoner

47 F.3d 1177 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Huber WAGONER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-50834. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 15, 1995. * Decided Feb. 24, 1995. Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Ronald Wagoner appeals his conviction of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113 (a). Wagoner contends that (1) his due process rights were violated because the district court failed sua sponte to hold a hearing on his competency to stand trial; and (2) he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to request a competency hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1281 and affirm. A. Competency Hearing 3 We review a district court's interpretation of a statute de novo. See United States v. Phelps, 995 F.2d 1258, 1264 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 2977 (1992). We review for clear error a district…