United States v. Claud Lamy Duval , 604 F. App'x 910 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 14-14386   Date Filed: 05/15/2015   Page: 1 of 3
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    ________________________
    No. 14-14386
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ________________________
    D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20552-WPD-1
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    CLAUD LAMY DUVAL,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Florida
    ________________________
    (May 15, 2015)
    Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Case: 14-14386     Date Filed: 05/15/2015    Page: 2 of 3
    Claud Duval appeals pro se the denial of his petition for a writ of error ad
    testificandum. We affirm.
    The district court did not err by denying Duval’s petition. Even if we read
    Duval’s petition liberally to argue that his indictment was defective because it was
    not signed by the grand jury foreperson, he was not entitled to relief. Duval’s
    knowing, voluntary, and unconditional pleas of guilty “waive[d] all
    nonjurisdictional defects in the proceeding.” United States v. Payne, 
    763 F.3d 1301
    , 1303 n.1 (11th Cir. 2014). The purported absence of the foreperson’s
    signature was “a mere technical irregularity,” Hobby v. United States, 
    468 U.S. 339
    , 345, 
    104 S. Ct. 3093
    , 3096 (1984), that did not affect the authority of the
    district court to enter its judgment. See United States v. Cotton, 
    535 U.S. 625
    , 630,
    
    122 S. Ct. 1781
    , 1785 (2002). Duval could have moved to dismiss the charges
    against him based on an alleged “defect in [his] indictment,” but the motion had to
    be filed before trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3). And a motion that challenged the
    jurisdiction of the district court had to be filed “while [his] case [was] pending.” 
    Id. 12(b)(2). Duval’s
    case was no longer pending after the 14-day period to appeal his
    conviction expired on April 25, 2014. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i); Akins v.
    United States, 
    204 F.3d 1086
    , 1089 n.1 (11th Cir. 2000). In any event, the record
    establishes that the foreperson signed Duval’s indictment, and the Clerk of the
    district court redacted the foreperson’s signature before filing the indictment as a
    2
    Case: 14-14386   Date Filed: 05/15/2015   Page: 3 of 3
    public record.
    We AFFIRM the denial of Duval’s petition.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-14386

Citation Numbers: 604 F. App'x 910

Judges: Hull, Pryor, Rosenbaum

Filed Date: 5/15/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024