What is the test for determining whether a defendant is competent to stand trial on federal charges?

Defense counsel then claimed that two psychiatrists who had examined appellant in connection with the federal charges had concluded that he was not then competent to stand trial. Counsel did not produce such alleged reports, however, and when offered a continuance by the court in order to do so, he declined. In these circumstances the court had reason to discount counsel's allegations. (Cf. People v. Laudermilk, supra, 67 Cal.2d 272, 277 fn. 3, 286, 287, 61 Cal.Rptr. 644, 431 P.2d 228.) The only evidence before the court was the reports of the two psychiatrists the court had appointed, which concluded appellant was competent. Based on the evidence before it, the court properly refused to hold a hearing. (People v. Stewart, supra, 89 Cal.App.3d 992, 996-997, 153 Cal.Rptr. 242.) ¹