United States v. Edward Huckabee

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-4574
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
EDWARD HUCKABEE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:11-cr-00107-FL-1)
Submitted: January 29, 2013 Decided: February 15, 2013
Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey M. Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Edward Huckabee appeals the conviction and forty-five
month sentence that resulted from his guilty plea to possession
of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2006). On appeal, he challenges the denial
of his motion to suppress, arguing that he was unreasonably
seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that any
evidence resulting from such seizure should have been
suppressed. We affirm.
Huckabee pleaded guilty without entering a conditional
guilty plea pursuant to Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure. An unconditional guilty plea generally
waives all antecedent, nonjurisdictional errors. Tollett v.
Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266–67 (1973). The right to challenge
on appeal a Fourth Amendment issue raised in a motion to
suppress is a nonjurisdictional defense and is therefore waived
by an unconditional guilty plea. Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S.
306, 320 (1983). Thus, as the Government asserts, Huckabee
waived his right to challenge on appeal the denial of the motion
to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm Huckabee's conviction. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3