UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-4771

ROBERT L. ROBINSON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News.
Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-96-28)

Submitted: May 15, 1997

Decided: June 3, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Richard W. Hudgins, Newport News, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey,
United States Attorney, Jeffrey W. Hart, Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Robert L. Robinson was convicted of refusing to take a blood alco-
hol test, driving under the influence (third offense), and violating
driving restrictions. See 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 7, 13, 3118 (West 1969 &
Supp. 1994). He was sentenced to two concurrent jail terms of twelve
months. He appeals his conviction on the ground that the district court
failed to sua sponte hold a competency hearing and order a mental
competency evaluation. We affirm.

At trial, Robinson represented himself with the assistance of an
attorney.* This attorney informed the court that Robinson had previ-
ously been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol
dependence, heroin dependence in remission, and paranoid schizo-
phrenia. Robinson further explained that he had"a computer chip in
[his] stomach that controls [his] actions." He claimed that the com-
puter chip controlled his actions the day he was arrested. Robinson
did not move for either a competency hearing or an evaluation, and
the court, on three separate occasions, concluded that it did not have
a reasonable basis for ordering an examination.

Robinson challenges the district court's refusal to sua sponte order
a hearing and examination under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 (1994). A district
court is required to order a competency hearing if"there is reasonable
cause to believe that the defendant may presently be suffering from
a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the
extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of
the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense." 18
U.S.C. § 4241(a). Further, a psychiatric or psychological examination
"may" be ordered by the court before a competency hearing pursuant
to § 4241(b). The determination of whether to order a hearing or
examination on the issue of competency is a matter left to the discre-
tion of the trial court. See United States v. West, 877 F.2d 281, 285
_________________________________________________________________
*The court denied Robinson's motion for an appointed attorney due to
his income. However, because Robinson faced possible imprisonment,
the court appointed an attorney to advise Robinson in the presentation of
his case.

                    2
n.1 (4th Cir. 1989). A review of the transcript of the trial reveals no
abuse of discretion.

The district court found no evidence that Robinson was unable to
understand the nature of the proceedings against him, and it specifi-
cally noted that, even given Robinson's delusions concerning the
computer chip, Robinson had "an excellent memory of what hap-
pened" on the day of his arrest and was able to conduct himself in an
"intelligent manner." On his own behalf, Robinson offered no docu-
mented evidence of incompetence apart from his prior evaluations.
An opinion that a defendant is a substance abuser or a paranoid
schizophrenic does not constitute an opinion on competency. See Hall
v. United States, 410 F.2d 653, 658 (4th Cir. 1969) (presence of men-
tal illness in not conclusive of incompetence).

Because Robinson has not presented facts giving rise to "reason-
able cause" to doubt his mental competence, see United States v.
Mason, 52 F.3d 1286, 1293 (4th Cir. 1995), he cannot successfully
challenge the district court's finding of competency. The district court
considered appropriate factors in making its determination and acted
well within its discretion in concluding that a hearing was not war-
ranted. Accordingly, we affirm Robinson's convictions. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3
