conduct a competency hearing; and (2) did not comply with several requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Where the district court has made a determination of competency, we review that finding for clear error. See United States v. Hoskie, 950 F.2d 1388, 1392 (9th Cir.1991). Because Miranda failed to raise the alleged Rule 11 errors before the district court, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, — U.S. — 122 S.Ct. 1043, 1046, 152 L.Ed.2d 90 (2002). The district court made a finding of competency at the conclusion of its colloquy with the defendant at the change of plea hearing. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err. See Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 398-99, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Further, within one week prior to the change
holding that competency standard for stand ing trial is same as standard for determining competency to waive right to counsel holding that the standard for determining competency to plead guilty is whether the defendant has a rational understanding of the proceedings holding that the fifth circuit has adopted the powell concurrence as the standard for competency to be executed holding competency standard for pleading guilty or waiving right to counsel is same as competency standard for standing trial and disapproving contrary holding of masthers holding that decisions on whether to plead guilty or waive the right to a jury trial reside solely with the defendant