United States v. Mangum ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •                           UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,              
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                               No. 00-4469
    GENE LATREACE MANGUM,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.
    (CR-99-356-1)
    Submitted: December 14, 2000
    Decided: December 21, 2000
    Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    COUNSEL
    Louis Carr Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury,
    Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Angela
    Hewlett Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    2                     UNITED STATES v. MANGUM
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Gene Latreace Mangum, a North Carolina prisoner, appeals his
    conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, for possession of a firearm after
    a felony conviction in violation of 
    18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922
    (g)(1),
    924(a)(2) (West 2000). Mangum’s attorney has filed a brief in accor-
    dance with Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967). Counsel states
    there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raises an issue relating
    to the legality of the search and seizure. Although Mangum was
    informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, he has not done so.
    In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have considered
    the briefs on appeal and examined the entire record for meritorious
    issues. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
    Police officers received consent to search the residence at issue by
    the legal tenant, Mangum’s fiancee; Mangum denied living at the res-
    idence when asked. Officers discovered the loaded firearm in question
    tied in a bag with items containing Mangum’s name. After receiving
    his Miranda* warnings, Mangum admitted he had been "holding [the
    weapon] for someone." The district court denied Mangum’s motion
    to suppress the evidence, finding that Mangum lacked standing to
    challenge the search and that consent to search had been freely and
    voluntarily given by the tenant of the property. Thereafter, Mangum
    entered a plea of guilty. We find the guilty plea to be knowingly and
    voluntarily entered, therefore, valid.
    A valid guilty plea constitutes waiver of all non-jurisdictional
    defects occurring prior to the plea, including claims of unlawful
    search and seizure based on the Fourth Amendment. See Tollett v.
    Henderson, 
    411 U.S. 258
    , 267 (1973). Mangum did not enter a condi-
    tional plea nor preserve his Fourth Amendment claims for appeal. See
    *Miranda v. Arizona, 
    384 U.S. 436
     (1966).
    UNITED STATES v. MANGUM                          3
    Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2); United States v. Wiggins, 
    905 F.2d 51
    , 52
    (4th Cir. 1990). Because the facts underlying this claim were known
    to Mangum before he entered his plea and because the claim does not
    call into question the trial court’s jurisdiction, Mangum’s Fourth
    Amendment claim is foreclosed by his plea.
    We have examined the entire record in this case, including the tran-
    script of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy and sentencing hearing, and
    find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
    Mangum’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel
    inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition to the Supreme
    Court of the 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 in this court for leave to with-
    draw 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 00-4469

Filed Date: 12/21/2000

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014