United States v. Quarles , 194 F. App'x 103 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4926
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GERMAINE ANTHONY QUARLES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(CR-04-126)
Submitted: July 28, 2006 Decided: August 15, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul A. Dull, BRUMBERG, MACKEY & WALL, P.L.C., Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, R. Andrew
Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Germaine Anthony Quarles appeals his conviction and
aggregate 452-month prison sentence pursuant to his guilty plea to
conspiracy to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and two counts of possession
of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). Finding no error, we affirm.
First, Quarles argues that an incorrect offense date in
one count of the indictment requires reversal of his conviction.
We conclude that Quarles has waived this argument by virtue of his
guilty plea. A guilty plea effects a waiver of all
non-jurisdictional defects in the indictment. Tollett v.
Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973) (stating that “when a criminal
defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact
guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not
thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of
constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the
guilty plea”); United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir.
1993) (same). Defects in the indictment are not jurisdictional.
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631 (2002). Quarles’s valid
guilty plea therefore waives his argument concerning an error in
the indictment.
Quarles next argues that he cannot receive punishment for
a “second or subsequent” § 924(c) conviction when the first
- 2 -
conviction occurs in the same proceeding. Quarles received a
mandatory five-year prison sentence for one conviction for
possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. He
received a mandatory twenty-five year term for another conviction
for possessing a firearm during a different drug trafficking
offense. The twenty-five-year minimum sentence applies “[i]n the
case of a second or subsequent conviction.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1)(C)(i) (2000). The Supreme Court rejected Quarles’s
argument in Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129, 132-33 (1993).
Accordingly, the district court did not err in imposing an enhanced
sentence.
We affirm Quarles’s convictions and sentence. 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 -