What arguments did Tenzin Orgil raise on appeal and how did the Eleventh Circuit rule on each ground?

1. What Orgil expressly argued on appeal — the competency claim that appears on the record

The clearest, documented issue on appeal is Orgil’s contention that the district court erred in finding him competent to proceed; the published summary of the Eleventh Circuit disposition specifically states the court “did not err in concluding Orgil was competent to proceed,” indicating that competency was squarely raised and decided ^[1]. The appellate opinion and docket entries hosted by Justia corroborate that this competency question was part of the appellate package in case No. 24-11796 ^{[3] [2]}.

2. How the Eleventh Circuit ruled on the competency ground

On the competency issue the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination — the appellate panel concluded the lower court’s competency finding was not erroneous ^[1]. That language signals the panel applied the governing standard for competency review and found no reversible error; the summary statement in the court’s opinion is therefore the primary source for the outcome ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Other potential grounds and the limits of the public record

Beyond the competency ruling, the publicly available materials in the provided sources do not clearly enumerate other specific legal arguments Orgil pressed on appeal nor do they set out how the Eleventh Circuit ruled on each if there were multiple grounds ^{[3] [2]}. The docket and opinion listings confirm the appeal exists and was decided, but the excerpts supplied do not include a completed opinion transcript or a comprehensive summary of all claims and rulings beyond the competency determination ^{[3] [2]}. Therefore, it is not possible from these sources to authoritatively list additional appellate arguments or the court’s disposition on them.

4. Reading between the lines — what the documented competency ruling implies

A discrete affirmation that “the court did not err” on competency implies the appellate panel found the district court followed required procedures and applied the correct legal standard when assessing Orgil’s mental fitness to plead or proceed at critical stages ^[1]. That outcome generally forecloses relief tied to competency unless an appeal can show clear legal error or new evidence, and the recorded decision suggests the Eleventh Circuit found no such defect in the district court’s handling ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Alternative viewpoints and possible procedural posture

The available sources do not provide Orgil’s full brief, arguments from the government, or a detailed opinion setting forth the panel’s legal analysis, so alternative interpretations about the breadth of the appeal remain possible; for example, Orgil may have pressed challenges to the plea, to particular counts such as “Count Five,” or to sentencing matters referenced in docket summaries, but the sources here do not supply the text needed to confirm or reject those possibilities ^{[1] [3]}. Readers should treat the documented competency ruling as conclusive for that discrete claim while recognizing gaps in the public excerpts prevent a full accounting of every appellate contention.

6. Where to look next to fill the gaps

To obtain a complete inventory of Orgil’s appellate arguments and the Eleventh Circuit’s rulings on each, the full appellate opinion or Orgil’s opening and reply briefs — available on the Eleventh Circuit’s opinions page or in the official docket — should be consulted; the court’s media and opinions pages and the Justia docket listing are the starting points reflected in the sources ^{[2] [4]}. Until those complete documents are reviewed, authoritative statements can only be made about the competency ruling affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit as cited above ^{[1] [2]}.