UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-4012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CRANDALL ORTAIS INGRAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00332-NCT-1)
Submitted: September 28, 2021 Decided: September 30, 2021
Before AGEE, WYNN, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Terry M. Meinecke, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Crandall Ortais Ingram 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(a)(2), and was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Ingram, citing
Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), argues that the district court plainly erred
by accepting his guilty plea because the criminal information did not adequately charge
each element of the offense against him. We affirm.
To the extent Ingram 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 Ingram challenges the validity of his guilty plea, and to the extent
that challenge is not also waived, Ingram’s argument lacks merit. See United States v.
Moody, 2 F.4th 180, 197-98 (4th Cir. 2021) (holding § 922(g) does not require Government
to prove defendant knew he was prohibited from possessing firearms); see also Greer v.
United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090, 2097 (2021) (holding that, to obtain relief based on Rehaif
error, defendant must demonstrate that “there is a ‘reasonable probability’ that he would
not have pled guilty” had district court “correctly advised him of the mens rea element of
the offense”).
2
We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
3