Plascencia-Valenzuela

MEMORANDUM *

Tomas Plascencia-Valenzuela appeals his conviction for attempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 , and for making a false claim of United States citizenship, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911 . We reverse his conviction and remand for further proceedings.

Plascencia argues that the district court should have held a Pate 1 hearing regarding his competence to stand trial, in light of what it knew about his condition before, during and after trial. We agree. Because once trial started no Pate hearing was actually requested, we review the district court’s failure to conduct one sua *765 sponte for plain error. See United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448 , 1456 (9th Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Giron-Reyes, 284 F.3d 78, 80 (1st Cir.2000).

The evidence of incompetency which accumulated before, during and after trial rose to such a level that a second competency hearing was compelled. 2 See Odie v. Woodford, 238 F.3d 1084 , 1087 (9th Cir.2001); United States v. Lewis, 991 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir.1993); de Kaplany v. Enomoto, 540 F.2d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 1976); Moore v. United States, 464 F.2d 663, 666 (9th Cir.1972).

While the evidence was…