District Court Discretion in Competency Hearings and Waiver of Restitution Challenges Established in United States v. Barreto

Introduction

United States v. Barreto, 23-6799-cr (2d Cir. May 30, 2025), is a summary order from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in which the court affirmed the conviction and sentence of Michael Barreto. Barreto pleaded guilty to counts of enticement of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) and receipt of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(B) & (b)(1). He was sentenced principally to 240 months’ imprisonment, followed by supervised release and restitution. On appeal, he challenged three aspects of the proceedings:

Whether the district court should have ordered sua sponte a competency hearing;
Whether a misstatement of the maximum supervised-release term at the plea colloquy required reversal under Rule 11;
Whether the $9,000 restitution award was unauthorized absent evidence of victims’ financial loss.

The Second Circuit reviewed these claims under well-established standards—abuse of discretion for competency hearings, plain-error review for Rule 11 defects, and waiver doctrine for restitution—and ultimately affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit’s summary order reached three conclusions:

Competency Hearing: The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to order a competency hearing sua sponte. A court-ordered psychological exam by Dr. Paradis found Barreto competent, and the court’s own observations plus defense counsel’s lack of objection supported that finding.
Rule 11 Error: Although the district court misstated the maximum term of supervised release (five years instead of life), Barreto failed to move to withdraw his plea or object at sentencing. Under plain-error review, he did not show a reasonable probability that he would have declined the plea absent the error.
Restitution Award: The mandatory minimum restitution in child-pornography offenses is $3,000 per count, but the district court must find actual financial loss. Barreto’s counsel affirmatively requested the $9,000 award, thereby waiving any challenge.

The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment in all respects.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) – Requires a competency hearing when there is reasonable cause to doubt a defendant’s mental fitness.
United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217 (2d Cir. 2002) – Sets the standard for reviewing denial of sua sponte competency hearings for abuse of discretion.
Medina v. California, 505 U.S. 437 (1992) – Due Process prohibits prosecuting an incompetent defendant.
United States v. Nichols, 56 F.3d 403 (2d Cir. 1995) – A mental illness finding alone does not compel a competency hearing.
United States v. Kerr, 752 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2014) – A court may rely on a competency report showing fitness and on its own observations before accepting a guilty plea.
Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) – Plain-error review of unpreserved Rule 11 errors requires showing a reasonable probability that the outcome would differ absent the error.
United States v. Vaval, 404 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2005) – Analyzes plain-error review in the Rule 11 context.
United States v. Spruill, 808 F.3d 585 (2d Cir. 2015) – Distinguishes waiver from forfeiture in sentencing and restitution challenges.

Legal Reasoning

Competency Hearing Abuse‐of‐Discretion Analysis: Under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a) and Quintieri, a district court must hold a competency hearing if there is “reasonable cause” to doubt fitness. The court may consider defense counsel’s views, psychiatric reports, and its own observations. Here, Dr. Paradis’s evaluation found Barreto competent despite low intellectual functioning. Defense counsel declined to raise competence concerns at plea or sentencing. Magistrate’s and trial judge’s observations of Barreto’s coherent allocution and rational participation further undercut any reasonable cause. The court therefore did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order a new hearing.

Rule 11 Plain-Error Review: Rule 11(b)(1)(H) requires advising a defendant of supervised release maximum. The district court misstated life supervised release as five years. Under plain-error review (Rule 52(b)), Barreto bore the burden to show a reasonable probability he would have declined the plea but for the error. The record showed he and counsel knew the correct term from the PSR and sentencing memorandum, yet made no effort to withdraw. Without a timely objection or motion to withdraw, the misstatement did not satisfy plain-error prejudice.

Restitution Waiver Doctrine: 18 U.S.C. § 2259 mandates a minimum $3,000 restitution per count but requires a finding of victims’ actual losses. No evidence of loss was ever presented. However, defense counsel affirmatively asked for only the $9,000 minimum. By requesting the precise award and failing to object, Barreto effected a true waiver—an intentional relinquishment of the right to contest restitution on appeal. Spruill confirms that a deliberate tactical decision to accept a district court’s order waives appellate review.

Impact

United States v. Barreto confirms important aspects of federal criminal procedure:

Competency Hearings: Courts may rely on thorough psychological evaluations and contemporaneous observations. Absent fresh evidence of incompetence or objections from counsel, they need not hold a sua sponte hearing.
Rule 11 Misstatements: Misstatements of collateral sentencing terms do not automatically invalidate pleas. Defendants must timely object or move to withdraw and demonstrate prejudice under plain-error review.
Restitution Challenges: Defendants who affirmatively agree to a restitution figure—particularly the statutory minimum—waive later appellate review, even where the district court omitted required factual findings.

Lower courts and practitioners should note that strategic acquiescence can foreclose appellate relief, and that counsel’s silence or agreement in the face of potential error may be deemed a waiver rather than mere forfeiture.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Competency Hearing Standard: A hearing is required only if there is “reasonable cause” to doubt a defendant’s ability to understand proceedings or assist counsel. A professional evaluation finding competence and no objections from counsel usually forecloses further inquiry.
Plain-Error Review: When a defendant fails to object at trial, an appellate court may correct only “clear or obvious” errors that affected substantial rights and seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.
Waiver vs. Forfeiture: Forfeiture is failing to timely object; waiver is intentionally giving up a known right. Waiver bars appellate review even if an error existed.

Conclusion

United States v. Barreto reaffirms district courts’ broad discretion in competency determinations, underscores the necessity of timely objections to Rule 11 errors, and illustrates how affirmative agreement to restitution terms results in waiver of appellate claims. The decision highlights the importance of counsel vigilance at every critical stage—competency, plea colloquy, and sentencing—to preserve issues for appeal and underscores that strategic decisions have binding consequences in federal criminal practice.