Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division. No. 23-cr-00001-DRL-SJF-1 — Damon R. Leichty , Judge .

ARGUED OCTOBER 27, 2025 — DECIDED SEPTEMBER 2, 2026

Before EASTERBROOK, ROVNER, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges .

ROVNER, Circuit Judge . In December 2024, Matthew Frazier was convicted in federal court of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A, and, in January 2025, he was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 120 months’ imprisonment along with seven years’ supervised release. He raises two challenges to that conviction and sentence on appeal—that the district court erred in failing to order a second Page 2competency hearing, and that it erred in imposing, as a condition of supervised release, the requirement that he maintain full-time employment.

Frazier’s history includes a prior conviction in state court. In July 2019, Frazier was charged in Indiana state court with possession of child pornography, and in December of that year the state court determined that he was not competent to stand trial and committed him to the Indiana Division of Mental Health. He was eventually found competent following treatment, and in April 2021, he pled guilty to child exploitation and possessing child pornography and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment and six years of probation.

Frazier began that probation in October 2021, and subsequently, authorities received information that Frazier was accessing pornography websites in violation of his probation, and that an account potentially affiliated with him was accessing child pornography. In June 2022, a search of his residence revealed evidence of criminal activity including images and videos of child exploitation material. Frazier was subsequently indicted federally for possessing images of child exploitation material involving a minor under 12 years old, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. Defense counsel moved for a competency evaluation based on counsel’s concerns with Frazier’s ability to assist in the preparation for his defense and based on Frazier’s previous incompetency finding, disability determination, and mental health history

Frazier then underwent a two-week forensic evaluation by two psychologists. Frazier told them he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation, and was taking a number of Page 3different medications. He was experiencing “ongoing auditory and visual hallucinations” including seeing and hearing dead people he did not recognize and whose voices said “hi.” Although the psychologists noted that he experienced symptoms including auditory and visual hallucinations to varying degrees on an ongoing basis, they also noted that the symptoms appeared to be adequately managed with psychotropic medications at that time. They diagnosed him with Major Depressive Disorder but “not necessarily schizophrenia or intellectual disability given inconsistencies with those diagnoses.” The psychologists concluded that he also demonstrated a factual understanding of the nature and consequences of court proceedings. The evaluation concluded, in June 2023, that his symptoms had resulted in impairment in functioning in several areas of his life, but that he was competent to stand trial. At the competency hearing on June 14, 2023, defense counsel did not contest that report or present any evidence contradicting it. The court held that Frazier was competent to stand trial.

Just over a year later, in April 2024, Frazier appeared in the district court to waive his right to a jury trial. In his testimony, he indicated to the court that he still sees and hears things that are not there and stated that he presently saw roughly 100 people in the courtroom that had passed away and could hear voices that told him to do bad things and to hurt people. Although his defense counsel did not seek a new competency hearing, Frazier now argues on appeal that based on those statements by Frazier concerning the auditory and visual hallucinations, the court should have sua sponte ordered a new competency examination. Considering the hearing as a whole and the court’s questioning of Frazier, as well as the initial report and conclusion from the earlier competency hearing in the case, the court did not abuse its discretion Page 4in determining that the evidence did not call into question his competency.

It is well-established that 'where the evidence calls into question a defendant’s competency, the trial court’s failure to inquire into the defendant’s competency abridges the constitutional right to a fair trial.” Yang v. United States , 114 F.4th 899, 906 (7th Cir. 2024). ''[E]vidence of a defendant's irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence to stand trial are all relevant in determining whether further inquiry is required ....’” Id ., quoting Drope v. Missouri , 420 U.S. 162, 180 (1975). The focus of the competency inquiry is on whether Frazier had “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding-and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Yang , 114 F.4th at 907 (internal quotation marks omitted); Dusky v. United States , 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960).

Here, Frazier argues that evidence of a deteriorating condition at the time of the hearing on his waiver of a jury trial was such that the district court should have ordered a competency hearing sua sponte . He does not argue that there was a basis to question his competency at the trial itself, or at any other stage of proceedings. We examine, therefore, only the circumstances before the judge at the hearing on his waiver of his right to a jury trial. We review the district court’s failure to sua sponte hold a competency hearing for abuse of discretion. United States v. Truett , 109 F.4th 996, 1000 (7th Cir. 2024). Particularly given that deferential standard of review, there is no reversible error as to the competency issue here.

Although defense counsel had requested a competency examination a year earlier, defense counsel did not seek Page 5another competency evaluation at the time of the waiver of the jury trial. Even absent that request, however, the district court judge’s discussions with Frazier reflected his awareness of the importance of ensuring competence. The judge was thorough in determining whether Frazier had a rational understanding of the proceedings and whether his medical condition impacted that ability. And the judge’s determination was made against the backdrop of the psychological evaluation done just a year earlier in which he was found competent.

Prior to accepting Frazier’s waiver of his right to a jury trial, the judge directly asked Frazier about the current state of his mental health, and Frazier responded that it was “the same. I hear things and see things. I have schizophrenia. It’s still not changed, sir.” The judge then proceeded to review the medications that Frazier was taking, and Frazier explained that some of his medications had changed, but under both the old medicine and the new he heard voices and saw dead people. After Frazier explained that he currently could see and hear dead people in the courtroom, the judge asked questions as to Frazier’s ability to identify the real persons in the courtroom, individually addressing each person physically present there. Frazier’s answers demonstrated that he could identify the real persons in the courtroom and distinguish them from the persons he knew to be not real. He expressed some concerns with blocking out the voices to hear the judge. The judge made clear to Frazier that Frazier should ask him to restate or to explain at any time if Frazier encountered such a problem.

The judge was also careful in questioning Frazier as to his waiver of his right to the jury trial, and repeatedly had Frazier explain in his own words his understanding of his legal rights and the impact of his waiver. For instance, after asking Frazier Page 6if he understood that he was entitled to a trial by jury, the judge then asked Frazier what he understood a jury to be, to which Frazier responded, “a jury is, like, 12 people, and they judge whether I'm guilty or innocent,' and asked him whether he understood what it meant to say a jury would have to agree 'unanimously,' to which Frazier responded “[a]ll together.” At the conclusion of the colloquy, the judge asked whether Frazier had any questions that lingered and whether he had additional questions for his counsel, and Frazier indicated that he did have some questions at that time. The judge paused the proceedings to allow Frazier to consult with his counsel, and when proceedings were recommenced, Frazier affirmed that his questions had been addressed, that he understood his right to a trial by a jury, and that it was still his wish to waive that right to a jury trial.

The court directly then addressed defense counsel, who had requested the competency hearing the year prior, and asked: “Do you have any doubt in your mind as to whether Mr. Frazier is waiving his right to a jury trial in a knowing and voluntary way? And yes, I ask that question in a specific way.” Defense counsel answered that Frazier’s decision-making was at about the same level as when he was determined to be competent. Defense counsel noted that he always had reservations about the quality of Frazier’s decision-making, noting that Frazier had been in special education for his entire academic career and in eighth grade had tested at a second grade reading level. He stated, however, that he thought Frazier did, in fact, understand the right to a jury trial, and that Frazier had expressed on several occasions the desire not to have a jury trial. He also explained the strategic legal rationale for such a decision and the ways in which it could be beneficial in the circumstances of the case.

Page 7The judge then directly asked defense counsel whether anything had come to his attention that would suggest that Frazier was not competent to waive a right to jury trial, and defense counsel responded “No.” The same question was asked of the AUSA who also responded “No.” The AUSA pointed to the earlier competency determination, and its conclusion that although his symptoms had resulted in impairment in functioning in several areas of Frazier's life, the symptoms did not appear to be impacting Frazier’s ability to understand and rationally apply facts related to the legal process in his case.

In short, Frazier reported that he experienced 'ongoing auditory and visual hallucinations” which had been present as well when he was deemed competent, with the difference that the voices were now urging him to engage in bad conduct and indicated that he was able to distinguish the hallucinations from the real persons. His attorney, who had sought the first competency hearing, believed Frazier’s decision-making to be at the same level as it was when the prior competency determination was made a year earlier, believed him to be competent, and believed that he understood what he was waiving. Frazier himself indicated his mental health was the same as it had been. And the court questioned Frazier in a manner that included having Frazier explain some of the legal concepts in his own words to ensure he was not simply rotely responding to suggestive questions. The court also explored the legal rationale for the waiver decision. Therefore, the evidence before the court indicated that Frazier had “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” as well as a “rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Mental illness is not the same as lack of competency, Page 8and there was no evidence of a change in his mental illness that called into question the continued validity of the prior competency determination that assessed the impact of that mental illness. On the record before us, the court did not abuse its discretion in failing to hold a competency hearing.

The only remaining issue is whether the court erred in imposing the following term of supervised release:

You must be lawfully employed full-time (at least 30 hours per week). If you are not employed full-time, you must try to find full-time employment under the supervision of the probation officer. If you become unemployed, or change your employer, position, or location of employment, you must tell the probation officer within 72 hours of the change. If after 90 days you do not find employment, you must complete at least 10 hours of community service per week until employed or participate in a job skills training program approved and directed by your probation officer.

No objection was made in the district court, and the government does not argue that the objection was waived as opposed to forfeited. Accordingly, we can reverse only for plain error. United States v. Gibbs , 130 F.4th 619, 621-22 (7th Cir. 2025). To meet that standard, Frazier must demonstrate an error, that is plain, and that affects his substantial rights, and if that burden is met, then we can make a discretionary determination as to whether to reverse by considering whether that error affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. United States v. Harris , 102 F.4th 847, 851 (7th Cir. 2024). Frazier argues that the plain error standard is Page 9met because the imposition of that condition is inconsistent with the district court’s explicit recognition at sentencing that Frazier was unable to maintain employment due to his disability.

The court in imposing the condition incorporated the Presentence Report (PSR), which stated the reasons for imposing the condition and identified the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) upon which the determination was made. See United States v. Peterson , 891 F.3d 296, 301 (7th Cir. 2018) (noting that to adopt the PSR is to make fact findings, and that the procedural requirement to consider the § 3553(a) factors in imposing and communicating discretionary conditions is met in the adoption of the PSR that supplies that reasoning). The PSR noted that one of the potential aggravating factors was that Frazier had very little work history and appeared to have limited structure in his life. The district court noted at sentencing the dangers of idle time for Frazier, and the importance of supervision given how quickly he reoffended. As to the specific condition challenged here, the court adopted the reasoning of the PSR, which noted that lawful employment was associated with pro-social activities which reduce the risk of recidivism and which provide for rehabilitation.

Frazier does not argue that those reasons for imposition of the release condition are inapplicable or that they are not properly grounded in the § 3553(a) factors. His sole argument is that the imposition of that release condition is inconsistent with the court’s recognition at sentencing that Frazier was not capable of full-time work.

The supervised release condition itself, however, provides options for circumstances in which the defendant is unable to meet the employment requirement. Frazier never argues that Page 10the court could not believe him capable of 10 hours of community service, and even that level of engagement would address the court’s concern with social engagement and structure. Moreover, although the court recognized that Frazier was not then capable of maintaining full-time employment, Frazier’s argument presumes that Frazier would be equally incapable of employment upon release from his imprisonment 10 years later. Frazier contends that there is not a shred of evidence supporting the government's view that Frazier would be better off after a decade in federal prison. Frazier’s argument depends upon an equally-tenuous contrary assumption—that ten years from now medical science will provide no more effective treatment for Frazier’s condition than is currently available, and that ten years of consistent treatment of his mental health condition will yield no significant benefits. But we need not consider whether a court could impose a supervised release condition based on the possibility that by the time the person is released his health condition will have improved or can be better treated. Here, Frazier has not argued that in his current condition he could not fulfill the alternative of community service or participation in job training. Therefore, the district court did not commit plain error in imposing a condition that, at a minimum, requires that he engage in that limited participation in structured activities. If upon his release it becomes clear that Frazier cannot fulfill even those requirements, then, as the district court made clear to Frazier at the sentencing hearing, Frazier could seek to have those conditions modified.

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED