United States v. Shawn Michael Chalifoux

── United States v. Shawn Michael Chalifoux ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 17, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 24-13885 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 1 of 12 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13885 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SHAWN MICHAEL CHALIFOUX, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cr-00015-CEM-LHP-1 ____________________ Before LUCK, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Shawn Michael Chalifoux has taken this interlocutory ap- peal to challenge an order of the district court overruling his objec- tions to a report and recommendation (“R&R”) and granting the USCA11 Case: 24-13885 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 2 of 12 2 Opinion of the Court 24-13885 government’s motion to involuntarily administer him antipsy- chotic medication.1 After careful review of the record and the briefs, we affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY In February 2021, a grand jury indicted Chalifoux for one count of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphet- amine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 & 841(b)(1)(A) (“Count One”), one count of distribution of heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C) (“Count Two”), and two counts of distribution of five grams or more of methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(B) (“Counts Three and Four”). Chalifoux entered into a plea agreement with the government and pled guilty to Count One. Twice before sen- tencing, however, Chalifoux’s counsel withdrew, and new attor- neys were appointed. Before the rescheduled sentencing hearing was set to take place, Chalifoux moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that his prior counsel had not adequately explained the plea agreement to him. The district court held a hearing on the motion, during which the question of Chalifoux’s competency was raised for the first time, by Chalifoux’s counsel. Chalifoux’s counsel orally moved for a psychological evaluation, without objection, and the court granted the motion. 1 United States v. Chalifoux, No. 6:21-cr-15, 2024 WL 4804829 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 4803228 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2024). USCA11 Case: 24-13885 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 04/17/2026 Page: 3 of 12 24-13885 Opinion of the Court 3 In February 2022, a magistrate judge appointed Dr. Randy K. Otto, Ph.D., to examine Chalifoux and render an opinion re- garding his competency. Dr. Otto filed a forensic psychological evaluation, recommending that the district court consider Chali- foux “unable to understand the nature of the consequences of the proceedings against him and assist properly in his defense as a re- sult of a mental disorder (i.e., paranoid thinking).” After receiving Dr. Otto’s report, the government moved for a competency hear- ing under 18 U.S.C. § 4241, in part because Dr. Otto had not stated whe