United States v. Arenburg
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Per curiam
Defendant-Appellant Jeffrey Robert Arenburg, a Canadian citizen, asks us to vacate his conviction for assaulting a federal official, 18 U.S.C. § 111, on the ground that he was not competent to stand trial. The district court’s competency determination was based principally on a magistrate judge’s prior findings that defendant was competent to stand trial and to represent himself. On appeal, no party challenges the accuracy of the magistrate judge’s findings at the time they were made, almost two months prior to the trial. Moreover, although defendant proceeded pro se, neither the government…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Drope v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Godinez v. MoranSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Indiana v. EdwardsSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
- United States v. Ernesto Quintieri, Carlo DonatoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2002
- United States v. JacobsonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Gorbey v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012
- United States v. Steven LatinCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2015
- United States v. PattersonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2013
- United States v. KerrCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
- United States v. DiMartinoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2020
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.