UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-5013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ARMANDO BETANCOURT GONZALEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-04-2)
Submitted: November 4, 2005 Decided: December 19, 2005
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy E.
Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Armando Betancourt Gonzalez pled guilty to one count of
possession with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). He was sentenced to
the statutory minimum term of five years’ imprisonment. On appeal,
counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but addressing whether the district court committed plain
error in denying the motion to suppress evidence. Gonzalez was
informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did
not do so. The Government did not file a brief. Finding no error,
we affirm.
It has long been established that a valid guilty plea
waives all antecedent nonjurisdictional defects. See Tollett v.
Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973); United States v. Cain, 155
F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir. 1998). Because a review of the plea
colloquy shows that Gonzalez’s guilty plea was knowing and
voluntary, and without the benefit of a plea agreement reserving
the right to challenge the denial of the motion to suppress, he has
waived his right to challenge that ruling.
Because Gonzalez was sentenced to the statutory minimum
term of imprisonment, we find no error with the application of the
sentencing guidelines.
- 2 -
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire
record in this case and found no error. Accordingly, we affirm
Gonzalez’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform Gonzalez, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If he
requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes such a
petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court
for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Gonzalez. 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 -