Case: 18-12190 Date Filed: 07/25/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-12190
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cr-00385-LSC-WC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CURTIS JULIUS,
a.k.a. Pickel Julius,
a.k.a. Pickles Julius,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(July 25, 2019)
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 18-12190 Date Filed: 07/25/2019 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Julius appeals his conviction after pleading guilty to being a felon in
possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On appeal, Julius
contends that the district court erred in preventing him from presenting a
justification defense at trial. The government asserts that Julius waived his right to
raise that argument on appeal when he pleaded guilty. We agree with the
government and, thus, dismiss the appeal.
Julius was charged with -- and pleaded not guilty to -- two counts of being a
felon in possession of a firearm. The government filed a pre-trial motion in limine
to exclude the introduction of evidence supporting Julius’s anticipated justification
defense. The district court granted conditionally the government’s motion; the
grant required Julius to obtain the court’s permission before introducing evidence
or argument about a potential justification defense in the presence of the jury.
At trial, Julius -- outside the presence of the jury -- presented evidence to the
court in support of his justification defense. The district court determined that the
evidence was insufficient to satisfy the standards of a justification defense and,
thus, excluded the evidence.
After the close of evidence and before closing arguments, Julius indicated to
the district court that he wished to plead guilty. The district court then conducted a
2
Case: 18-12190 Date Filed: 07/25/2019 Page: 3 of 4
plea colloquy pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Under the terms of the oral plea
agreement, Julius pleaded guilty to Count 1 in exchange for the government’s
moving to dismiss Count 2. The government agreed to recommend a sentence of
84 months’ imprisonment, to run concurrent with the sentence imposed in a related
case involving the revocation of Julius’s supervised release. The district court
determined that Julius’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an
independent factual basis.
The district court later sentenced Julius to 84 months’ imprisonment. The
district court also imposed a 24-month sentence upon revocation of Julius’s
supervised release, to run consecutive to Julius’s 84-month sentence.
We review de novo whether a voluntary unconditional guilty plea waives a
defendant’s ability to raise an argument on appeal. United States v. Patti,
337 F.3d
1317, 1320 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003).
“Generally, a voluntary, unconditional guilty plea waives all
nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings.”
Id. at 1320; see also United States v.
Brown,
752 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2014) (“A guilty plea, since it admits all
the elements of a formal criminal charge, waives all nonjurisdictional defects in the
proceedings against a defendant.”). A voluntary guilty plea also waives all non-
jurisdictional defenses that could have been raised at the time of the defendant’s
plea. Grier v. United States,
472 F.2d 1157, 1158 (5th Cir. 1973). “A defendant
3
Case: 18-12190 Date Filed: 07/25/2019 Page: 4 of 4
who wishes to preserve appellate review of a non-jurisdictional defect while at the
same time pleading guilty can do so only by entering a ‘conditional plea’ in
accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2).” United States v. Pierre,
120 F.3d
1153, 1155 (11th Cir. 1997). “A conditional plea must be in writing and must be
consented to by the court and by the government.”
Id.
On appeal, Julius raises no challenge to the voluntariness of his guilty plea.
Moreover, the record demonstrates that during the plea colloquy, the district court
addressed adequately the core concerns underlying Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
By entering a knowing and voluntary unconditional guilty plea, Julius
waived his right to challenge on appeal the district court’s adverse rulings about
Julius’s justification defense: a non-jurisdictional defect. Although the
justification defense was a contested issue throughout Julius’s criminal
proceedings, Julius did not preserve -- as required by Rule 11(a)(2) -- the right to
appeal on that ground. See
Pierre, 120 F.3d at 1155. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal.
DISMISSED.
4
