United States v. Johnny Locklear, Jr. ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4967
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHNNY KINLAW LOCKLEAR, JR., a/k/a Bully,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:12-cr-00062-F-1)
Submitted: August 4, 2014 Decided: August 7, 2014
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip C. Zane, GEYERGOREY LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer
P. May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKinney, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Kinlaw Locklear, Jr. appeals the district
court’s judgment after pleading guilty to possessing firearms
subsequent to a felony conviction. On appeal, he contends the
district court erred in denying his request for a hearing under
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), which he made in his
pre-plea motion to suppress evidence. We dismiss the appeal.
“This court has recognized that, pursuant to Rule
11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the direct
review of an adverse ruling on a pretrial motion is available
only if the defendant expressly preserves that right by entering
a conditional guilty plea.” United States v. Abramski, 706 F.3d
307, 314 (4th Cir.), cert. granted, 134 S. Ct. 421 (2013), and
aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2259 (2014) (citations and internal quotations
omitted). Absent a valid conditional guilty plea, we “will
dismiss a defendant’s appeal from an adverse pretrial ruling on
a non-jurisdictional issue.” Id. (citation and internal
quotations omitted); see also Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S.
258, 267 (1973); Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. 306, 321 (1983).
Because Locklear did not enter a conditional guilty plea, we may
not review the district court’s adverse pretrial ruling.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3