United States v. Frank Chatmon

Frank Chatmon claims that the district court clearly erred when it found the government had proved by clear and convine- ing evidence that there were no less intrusive alternatives to forcible medication to restore Chatmon to competency for trial. We disagree, and hereby affirm the district court’s judgment.

I

A

The procedural history here is lengthy, but it makes sense to begin discussion with the prior appeal and our remand. 1 In 2013, Chatmon appealed a district court order that he be involuntarily medicated to restore his competency for trial. See United States v. Chatmon, 718 F.3d 369 (4th…