United States v. Campa-Macias , 358 F. App'x 400 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4446
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE ROSA CAMPA-MACIAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00070-FDW-1)
Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 23, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David L. Hitchens, LAW OFFICE OF DAVID L. HITCHENS, PLLC,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Rosa Campa-Macias pled guilty to possession with
intent to distribute cocaine and aiding and abetting in
violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999 & Supp. 2009)
and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006) and was sentenced to seventy-one months
of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but raising the following
issue: whether Campa-Macias voluntarily consented to the search
of his vehicle which contained the drugs at issue.
By pleading guilty Campa-Macias has waived all
antecedent non-jurisdictional defects, including the denial of a
motion to suppress. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267
(1973); United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir.
1993). Once a plea of guilty has become final, this Court’s
inquiry is limited to whether the underlying plea was counseled
and voluntary. United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569
(1989). Our review of the record reveals Campa-Macias knowingly
and voluntarily pled guilty.
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire
record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in
writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the
2
United States for further review. If the client requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave
to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state
that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3