IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-31286
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LARRY WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CR-139-ALL-B
--------------------
January 29, 2003
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Larry Williams appeals following his guilty plea conviction
and sentence on one count of possession with intent to distribute
50 grams or more of cocaine base. 21 U.S.C. § 841. Williams has
moved to file a “supplemental brief.” Williams’ motion, which we
construe as a motion to exceed the page limits, is GRANTED.
Williams argues that his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and
Sixth Amendments were violated and also contends that his
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-31286
-2-
confession was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436 (1966). A voluntary guilty plea waives all non-
jurisdictional defects in the proceedings against the defendant.
See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973); United States
v. Smallwood, 920 F.2d 1231, 1240 (5th Cir. 1991). Williams has
not asserted a non-jurisdictional defect nor has he challenged the
voluntariness of his guilty plea. His constitutional and Miranda
arguments are therefore waived.
Williams also contends that his indictment is insufficient
under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), because it fails
to allege drug quantity and “type of weapon.” He argues that the
alleged omissions are jurisdictional errors which deprived the
district court of authority to try and convict him.
Defects in the indictment do not deprive a court of
jurisdiction. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 122 S.
Ct. 1781, 1785 (2002). Moreover, Williams has not shown that his
indictment was defective under Apprendi for failing to charge a
specific drug quantity or type of weapon. The indictment’s
allegation of 50 grams or more of cocaine base was sufficient. See
United States v. Moreci, 283 F.3d 293, 297-99 (5th Cir. 2002) (an
indictment’s allegation of a minimum quantity of drugs, rather than
a specific quantity, satisfies Apprendi). Williams’ argument
regarding the indictment’s failure to allege “type of weapon” is
frivolous as 21 U.S.C. § 841 is a drug statute and does not concern
weapons.
No. 01-31286
-3-
Williams also submits that the district court erred in adding
two points to his offense level under U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon during the
offense. As part of his plea agreement Williams waived his right
to appeal his sentence unless it was in excess of the statutory
maximum or constituted an upward departure. Because the record
shows that Williams’ appeal waiver was valid, see United States v.
Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994), and his sentence does
not fit within the exceptions to the waiver provision, the portion
of Williams’s appeal relating to his sentence is DISMISSED. See
United States v. Martinez, 263 F.3d 436, 438 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART; MOTION GRANTED.