Case ID: f-appx_320/html/0266-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. April WORMLY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-50304
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 8, 2009.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Theresa Mallon Connolly, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

April Wormly pleaded guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1) by making telephone calls stating that there was a bomb on an aircraft. She contends the district court erred in failing to order a competency examination sua sponte and in failing to convene a competency hearing. A review of the record reveals that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to conduct a more searching competence inquiry. See United States v. Messervey, 317 F.3d 457, 463 (5th Cir.2002); United States v. Davis, 61 F.3d 291, 304 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. Williams, 819 F.2d 605, 607 (5th Cir.1987); United States v. Horovitz, 584 F.2d 682, 683 n. 3 (5th Cir.1978).

Wormly avers that the district court erred in imposing sentence without the benefit of a formal presentence investigation report. In her plea agreement, Wormly waived the right to assert this issue on appeal. See United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-68 (5th Cir.1992).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.