United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 13, 2006
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Charles R. Fulbruge III
FIFTH CIRCUIT Clerk
No. 05-41709
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONALD LYMUEL, also known as Little Ron,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(3:05-CR-2-4)
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald Lymuel appeals his guilty-plea conviction for
possessing, with the intent to distribute, five grams or more of a
mixture and substance containing cocaine base and aiding and
abetting the same. See 18 U.S.C. § 2; 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B)(iii).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
1
For the first time on appeal, Lymuel contends the magistrate
judge violated his due process rights, as well as 18 U.S.C. §
4241(a), in failing sua sponte to order a competency hearing. If
a defendant did not file a motion for a competency hearing in the
district court or, as in this case, did file and then withdrew the
motion, our court will generally review for abuse of discretion the
failure sua sponte to order such a hearing. See United States v.
Messervey, 317 F.3d 457, 463 (5th Cir. 2002). (Subsequent to
withdrawing his motion, Lymuel agreed to proceed before the
magistrate judge.) Furthermore, because Lymuel made no competency
objection during the guilty-plea hearing and did not seek to
withdraw his guilty plea in district court, our review is only for
plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002).
For such error, a defendant must show a “plain” or “obvious” error
that affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 732-35 (1993). If such a showing is made, we still
retain discretion whether to correct the error. Generally, we will
not do so unless it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 736 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
A psychiatric examination ordered by the magistrate judge
indicated Lymuel was malingering the presence of severe brain
damage. The results of his psychiatric examination, his videotaped
interactions and conversation for his drug transaction, statements
2
made to the court by various parties, and Lymuel’s demeanor at his
guilty-plea hearing, when objectively considered, were not
sufficient to raise a bona fide doubt as to Lymuel’s competency and
were not sufficient to give the magistrate judge reasonable cause
to believe Lymuel was unable to understand the proceedings against
him or assist in his defense. See Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375,
378 (1966); Messervey, 317 F.3d at 463. As such, there was no
plain error in failing sua sponte to hold a competency hearing.
In addition, again for the first time on appeal, Lymuel
asserts his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered
because, in the light of his mental defect, his plea colloquy
should have consisted of more than simple yes or no questions which
did little to probe his reasoning and comprehension. Again, we
review only for plain-error. See Vonn, 535 U.S. at 59. Because
the magistrate judge found Lymuel competent to enter a guilty plea
and the plea colloquy was sufficient to reasonably assure the plea
was knowingly and voluntarily entered, Lymuel has not shown plain
error.
AFFIRMED
3