Chilcote
United States v. Chilcote
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*745 MEMORANDUM **
We have jurisdiction under- 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
A. Chilcote was competent to plead guilty.
The district court did not clearly err in concluding that Chilcote met the standard for competency. 1 It was free to evaluate the credibility of the psychiatric reports from the Federal Medical Center and from Dr. Tinker and make its finding accordingly. 2 To the extent that Dr. Tinker contradicted the report from the Federal Medical Center, reliance on the Center does not constitute clear error.
B. Chilcote’s plea was voluntary and intelligent.
In response to the district court’s question regarding the voluntariness of his plea, Chilcote stated that no one had threatened or coerced him into entering the plea, 4 and it is proper to give that statement significant weight. 5 Moreover, Chilcote’s claim that he pled guilty to get moved out of state custody due to an alleged food deprivation is not sufficient to render his plea involuntary.
Further, nothing in the record indicates that Chilcote’s plea was not intelligent. 6 Chilcote acknowledged that he discussed the plea agreement with his legal advisor and that he understood his right to withdraw from…