United States v. Jorge Rivera

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-4771
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JORGE HERNANDEZ RIVERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00385-WO-1)
Submitted: July 29, 2021 Decided: August 3, 2021
Before KING, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian M. Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew G.T. Martin, United
States Attorney, Veronica L. Edmisten, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Hernandez Rivera pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e),
and the district court sentenced him to 180 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Rivera
argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019),
requires the Government to prove that the defendant knew he was barred from possessing
a firearm by virtue of his § 922(g) status and therefore the district court erred by accepting
Rivera’s guilty plea without informing him of this element. We affirm.
To the extent Rivera seeks to challenge a defect in the criminal information to which
he pleaded guilty, he has waived that argument. See United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d
263, 279 (4th Cir. 2010) (“When a defendant pleads guilty, he waives all nonjurisdictional
defects in the proceedings conducted prior to entry of the plea.” (internal quotation marks
omitted)). To the extent Rivera challenges the validity of his guilty plea, and to the extent
that challenge is not also waived, Rivera’s argument lacks merit. See United States v.
Moody, 2 F.4th 180, 197-98 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding that § 922(g) does not require the
Government to prove defendant knew he was prohibited from possessing a firearm).
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2