USA v. Wormly, No. 08-50304 (5th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED No. 08-50304 Summary Calendar April 8, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus APRIL WORMLY, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas No. 5:07-CR-533-ALL 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 * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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. No. 08-50304 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. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.