govinfo:USCOURTS-gand-2_22-cr-00024-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
GAINESVILLE DIVISION 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 Civil Action No. 
v. 2:22-cr-24-RWS 
LARRY STEVEN GROGAN, 
Defendant. 
 
 
ORDER 
This matter is before the Court on the April 24, 2026 Report and 
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Anna W. Howard recommending that 
Defendant Grogan be found incompetent to proceed to trial. [Dkt. 92 – Report and 
Recommendation (“R&R”)]. Judge Howard further recommended that the Court 
determine that Mr. Grogan is not restorable to competency within the foreseeable 
future and that he should be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for 
hospitalization at FMC Butner or another Federal Medical Center so that the 
Director of the facility can determine whether a formal certification should issue 
under 18 U.S.C. § 4246. [R&R at 10-11]. Mr. Grogan, through counsel, objects to 
Judge Howard’s recommendation. [Dkt. 95]. Having reviewed the record, 

 2 
including all evaluations of Mr. Grogan and the transcript of the April 22, 2026 
competency hearing in its entirety, the Court enters the following Order. 
BACKGROUND 
On June 7, 2022, Defendant Larry Steven Grogan was indicted by a federal 
grand jury in the Northern District of Georgia of second degree murder in violation 
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1114 & 1111 (Count One), assault on a federal employee in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Count Three), two offenses of discharging a firearm 
during a crime of violence (i.e., Counts One and Three), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
§§ 924(c) and 924(j) (Counts Two and Four), and possession of a firearm by a 
convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Count Five). [Dkt. 1]. The 
alleged offense conduct occurred on or about August 7, 2021. 
Mr. Grogan has been in federal custody since June 2022 after originally 
being charged in state court. He is currently placed at the Federal Medical Center, 
located in Butner, North Carolina. [Dkts. 33, 34]. Since his arrest, Mr. Grogan has 
been subject to multiple psychological and psychiatric evaluations, and, with one 
exception, medical professionals have consistently opined that Mr. Grogan is 
incompetent to proceed to trial. [See Dkt. 40 (10-31-23 Forensic Evaluation, 
Matthew R. Opesso, Psy.D., M.Ed.); Dkt. 71 (12-13-24 Report, Dr. Julie Rand 
Dorney, M.D.) (SEALED); Dkt. 81 (8-14-25 Forensic Evaluation, Megan Marks, 

 3 
Psy.D.,) (SEALED); and Dkt. 88 (12-9-25 Forensic Evaluation, Megan Marks, 
Psy.D. (SEALED)]. 
On December 21, 2023, the Court held a competency hearing. Mr. Grogan 
testified, and expert reports concerning competency were admitted. [Dkts. 47-48, 
50-51 (SEALED)]. The Court found that Mr. Grogan was incompetent to proceed 
to trial, see 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), and Mr. Grogan was committed to the custody of 
the Attorney General for treatment and to determine whether competency could be 
restored. [Dkt. 49]. 
On September 29, 2024, Megan Marks, Psy.D., Forensic Psychologist at 
FMC Butner, evaluated Mr. Grogan and opined that Mr. Grogan had been restored 
to competency. [Dkt. 64 (9-29-24 Forensic Evaluation, Megan Marks, Psy.D.) 
(SEALED)]. By September 2024, following several months of behavioral and 
emotional stability, Dr. Marks opined that Mr. Grogan’s primary DSM-5-TR 
diagnosis was “in full remission.” [Id., at 7-8 (Mr. Grogan residing in open mental 
health unit with cellmate without incident, no disciplinary infractions, obtaining 
job in Food Service Department)]. Dr. Marks reported that Mr. Grogan credited 
prescribed medication and his sobriety for rational thinking and identification of 
his previous beliefs concerning being targeted by law enforcement and attacked 
with energy weapons as “delusional.” [Id., at 7]. Following this evaluation, on 

 4 
October 11, 2024, the Bureau of Prisons provided a Certificate of Restoration of 
Competency to Stand Trial supported by Dr. Marks’s evaluation. [Dkt. 64 at 3 
(SEALED)]. Mr. Grogan was returned to the NDGA for a second competency 
hearing. 
After being returned to this district, defense counsel requested a follow-up 
psychological evaluation. [Dkts. 65, 67]. On December 13, 2024, another doctor 
opined that symptoms of documented mental health diagnoses were interfering 
with Mr. Grogan’s ability to assist in the defense of his case. [Dkt. 71 (12-13-24 
Report, Dr. Julie Rand Dorney, M.D.) (SEALED)]. Mr. Grogan was ordered 
returned to FMC Butner for continued treatment and restoration of competency. 
[Dkt. 72]. 
The two most recent evaluations were performed by Dr. Marks. 
 On August 14, 2025, Dr. Marks opined that Mr. Grogan remained 
incompetent but that “there was a substantial probability his competency could be 
restored with continued medication compliance, adjustments to his medication 
regimen as needed, and ongoing competency restoration.” [Dkt. 81 at 15 
(SEALED)]. According to Dr. Marks, as of August 2025, Mr. Grogan was “in 
partial remission.” [Id., at 11-12]. Dr. Marks explained that, while “delusional 
beliefs persist,” other symptoms, including “hallucinations, disorganized speech, 

 5 
and disorganized behavior appear to have generally resolved through compliance 
with psychiatric medication.” [Id., at 12]. 
 On December 19, 2025, Dr. Marks opined again that Mr. Grogan was not 
competent but reversed course on the likelihood that Mr. Grogan’s competency 
could be restored. [Dkt. 88 (SEALED)]. Notably, Dr. Marks’s December 2025 
Forensic Evaluation relied upon previous medical reports, forensic evaluations, 
medical and behavioral health records, records from Gwinnett County Detention 
Center, discovery materials provided by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, among other 
things. [Id., at 3 (listing materials and records)]. Dr. Marks opined that Mr. Grogan 
demonstrates “a factual and rational understanding of the nature and consequences 
of court proceedings.” [Id., at 12-14]. Nonetheless, Dr. Marks opined that Mr. 
Grogan continues to suffer from a mental disease or defect . . . which renders him 
not competent to stand trial.” [Id., at 14]. In sum, notwithstanding compliance 
with numerous medication trials during three different periods of restoration 
attempts, Mr. Grogan’s delusional beliefs have not responded to treatment. [Id.].1 
 
1 And, particularly relevant here, Dr. Marks addresses the basis for her previous 
opinion in September 2024 that competency had been restored. Specifically, Dr. 
Marks reports that Mr. Grogan admitted being “dishonest” in his earlier interviews 
“when he provided a rational and reality-based defense strategy he wished to 
pursue in his legal case, when in reality, he intended to proceed to trial in an 
attempt to show that his delusional beliefs were true.” [Id., at 2]. Mr. Grogan 

 6 
Dr. Marks, in consultation with other BOP medical providers, ultimately opined 
that “there is not a substantial probability Mr. Grogan’s competency can be 
restored in the foreseeable future, given his delusions are refractory to treatment.” 
[Id.]. Dr. Marks explained that if the Court determines that Mr. Grogan is, in fact, 
incompetent, and also agrees with the prognosis, namely, that there is not a 
substantial likelihood Mr. Grogan could be restored to competency in the 
foreseeable future, then Mr. Grogan is subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 
4246. [Id.]. 
On April 22, 2026, Judge Howard conducted a virtual evidentiary hearing 
via Zoom to determine Mr. Grogan’s competency for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 
4241. Defense counsel James Wesley Bryant, Federal Defender Program, was 
present with Mr. Grogan and provided an opportunity to examine his client. The 
parties stipulated admissibility of the most recent forensic evaluation prepared by 
Dr. Marks. [Hr’g Tr. at 5, Government Exhibit 1].2 
Judge Howard’s R&R adopts Dr. Marks’s opinions in recommending that 
Mr. Grogan be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for 
 
stated regularly over the course of the next several months that he hoped to 
proceed to trial and present evidence of his “entrapment.” [Id., passim]. 
 
2 The Court’s Order relies upon CM/ECF pagination. 
 

 7 
hospitalization at FMC Butner or another Federal Medical Center so that the 
Director of the facility can determine whether a formal certification should issue 
under 18 U.S.C. § 4246.3 
LEGAL STANDARD 
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), the district court 
“shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified 
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 
636(b)(1). “Parties filing objections to a magistrate’s report and recommendation 
must specifically identify those findings objected to. Frivolous, conclusive, or 
general objections need not be considered by the district court.” United States v. 
Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1361 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Marsden v. Moore, 847 
F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Absent 
objection, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 
 
3 The formal certification process has already been initiated in the Eastern District 
of North Carolina. On January 27, 2026, at the request of the Acting Warden of 
FMC Butner, the United States Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of North 
Carolina commenced civil commitment proceedings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 
4246(a). [See United States of America v. Larry Steven Grogan, E.D.N.C. Civil 
Case No. 5:26-HC-2015-BO, Dkt. 1 -- Certificate of Mental Disease or Defect and 
Dangerousness]. The Government simultaneously moved to hold the case in 
abeyance pending resolution of Mr. Grogan’s competency and restorability in the 
instant criminal case. [Id., Dkt. 5]. 
 

 8 
findings and recommendations made by the magistrate [judge],” 28 U.S.C. § 
636(b)(1), and “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 
record” in order to accept the recommendation. FED. R. CIV. P. 72, advisory 
committee note, 1983 Edition, Subdivision (b). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 
636(b)(1) and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has 
conducted a de novo review of those portions of the R&R to which Plaintiff objects 
and has reviewed the remainder of the R&R for plain error. See United States v. 
Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983). 
NATURE OF OBJECTION 
Mr. Grogan filed objections to the R&R stating that Judge Howard 
“improperly weighed the evidence by dismissing Mr. Grogan’s experience of 
electronic attacks and placing too much weight on Dr. Marks’ report.” [Obj., at 4]. 
Defense counsel suggests that Judge Howard did not consider Mr. Grogan’s 
testimony in proposing the Court find that Mr. Grogan remains incompetent. 
Counsel faults the Magistrate Judge’s R&R for addressing Mr. Grogan’s testimony 
in a conclusory fashion. As described by his counsel: 
Mr. Grogan was calm, engaged, and thoughtful during the hearing. He 
appropriately engaged with the Court by answering questions asked, 
and he engaged with Counsel during his direct examination. He was 
not animated or excited and did not cause any disruption during the 
hearing. He calmly provided testimony about the beginning of the 
directed energy weapons, the effects those attacks had on his life, and 

 9 
the step he took to stop those attacks. Further, he testified that the 
attacks had stopped since being taken into federal custody on the 
pending charges. Finally, Mr. Grogan testified that he was no longer 
taking his medication. Because of the side effects of the medication, 
he testified that he discontinued use. Despite not taking previously 
prescribed medication, Mr. Grogan was calm, engaged, and thoughtful 
during the hearing. 
 
[Id.]. 
 
DISCUSSION 
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution prohibits the Government from prosecuting defendants who are 
incompetent. See U.S. Const. Amend. V; Drope v. Missouri, 95 S. Ct. 896, 903 
(1975). “The constitutional test for competency, as articulated by the Supreme 
Court, is ‘whether [the defendant] has 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 proceeding against him.” United 
States v. Marks, 156 F.4th 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 2025) (quoting Dusky v. United 
States, 80 S. Ct. 788, 789 (1960)); see also Indiana v. Edwards, 128 S. Ct. 2379, 
2386 (2008) (citations omitted) (“[T]he Court’s ‘mental competency cases set forth 
a standard that focuses directly upon a defendant’s ‘present ability to consult with 
his lawyer,’ a ‘capacity ... to consult with counsel,’ and an ability ‘to assist 
[counsel] in preparing his defense[.]’”). 

 10 
Title 18, United States Code, Section 4241 governs the procedure for 
determining competency and provides: 
If, after the hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the defendant is presently 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, the court 
shall commit the defendant to the custody of the Attorney General. 
 
18 U.S.C. § 4241(d). 
“‘The determination of whether a defendant is mentally competent to stand 
trial is a question left to the sound discretion of the district court, with the advice of 
psychiatrists [or other mental health professionals]. The medical opinion of experts 
as to the competency of a defendant to stand trial is not binding on the court ....’” 
United States v. Robinson, 2025 WL 4643251, at *8 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2025) 
(citation omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 554602 (S.D. 
Fla. Feb. 27, 2026).4 
In this case, the Court finds that Judge Howard’s recommendation is amply 
supported by the record in this case, including the three prior forensic evaluations 
opining that Mr. Grogan is not competent to stand trial. [Dkts. 40, 71, 81, 88 
 
4 On this record, the Court does not require a second evidentiary hearing. See 
Marks, 156 F.4th at 1178 (affirming district court competency ruling where district 
court “reviewed” testimony and evidence following competency proceeding before 
magistrate judge). 

 11 
(SEALED)]. As noted in the R&R, Mr. Grogan continues to cling to the delusion 
that he was the target of attacks from directed energy weapons for approximately 
ten years prior to his arrest and that the attacks were carried out by deputies of the 
Banks County Sheriff’s Department. [Hr’g Tr., at 12-13]. According to Mr. 
Grogan, these attacks caused him to hear voices and suffer from physical 
symptoms consistent with individuals experiencing “psychosis, paranoia, low 
moral[e],” and generally making him believe he is mentally ill. [Hr’g Tr., at 14]. 
Mr. Grogan testified that he hoped to be deemed competent and proceed to trial so 
that he could defend his federal charges by presenting evidence that he was subject 
to the directed energy attacks. 
Like Mr. Grogan’s counsel, Judge Howard had the benefit of observing Mr. 
Grogan during the hearing. And, in Judge Howard’s view, Mr. Grogan’s sworn 
testimony further corroborated Dr. Marks’s report and opinions. [R&R, at 8-9]. 
More specifically, Judge Howard explained that Dr. Marks’s evaluation explained 
Mr. Grogan’s “persistent delusions” and how those delusions prevent Mr. Grogan 
from being able to assist properly in his defense. Judge Howard agreed with Dr. 
Marks’s opinion that Mr. Grogan has delusional beliefs regarding the events 
surrounding the alleged charges as well as his legal strategy, i.e., that Mr. Grogan 

 12 
seeks to present evidence at trial of alleged ongoing “direct energy attacks” by law 
enforcement. 
In short, Judge Howard’s deference to a licensed and experienced forensic 
psychologist – particularly one with the benefit of evaluating Mr. Grogan on three 
different occasions -- does not mean that she did not consider Mr. Grogan’s 
testimony or improperly weigh the evidence. See, e.g., Marks, 156 F.4th at 1178 
(overruling defense objection to magistrate judge’s evaluation of evidence); and 
see Robinson, 2025 WL 4643251, at *8 (citation omitted) (“While it may consider 
expert testimony in determining competency, the Court is free to assign whatever 
weight it determines is due to such testimony.”). This Court likewise credits the 
evidence and expert opinions of record to affirm Judge Howard’s recommendation. 
For the foregoing reasons, the Court overrules Mr. Grogan’s objection to 
Judge Howard’s R&R. 
CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Judge Howard’s R&R [Dkt. 92] 
is accepted with approval and ADOPTED for all purposes, and thus finds the 
Defendant is incompetent to stand trial and not restorable to competency within the 
foreseeable future. The Defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney 
General for hospitalization at FMC Butner or another Federal Medical Center so 

 13 
that the Director of the facility can determine whether a formal certification should 
issue under 18 U.S.C. § 4246. 
The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of the instant Order to the Warden 
at FMC Butner: 
N. Watkins-Ward, Acting Warden 
FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER 
Mental Health Department 
P.O. BOX 1600 
BUTNER, NC 27509 
 
The Government is DIRECTED to forward a copy of the instant Order to 
the Clerk, United States District Court, Eastern District of North Carolina, and the 
U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of North Carolina, Civil Division. 
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to administratively close this case, subject 
to a motion to reopen upon restoration of competency. 
SO ORDERED this 29th day of May, 2026. 
________________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
United States District Judge
 

Passage view · GavelSight