UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4618
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TERRANCE TERELL DENDY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:09-cr-01205-HMH-1)
Submitted: August 30, 2011 Decided: September 14, 2011
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven M. Hisker, HISKER LAW FIRM, PC, Duncan, South Carolina,
for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney,
Andrew B. Moorman, Sr., Assistant United States Attorney,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terrance Terell Dendy appeals his conviction and
sentence imposed for multiple violations of drug trafficking and
firearms statutes. On appeal, Dendy challenges the validity of
his unconditional guilty plea and the district court’s denial of
his motion to suppress. We conclude there is no error, and thus
we affirm.
Dendy claims that his plea was not knowing and
voluntary because the district court failed to inform him that
by unconditionally pleading guilty, he waived his right to
appeal all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings prior to
the entry of his plea. Allegations of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
violations are reviewed for plain error where, as here, the
appellant did not rely on the challenged ground when he moved to
withdraw his guilty plea in the district court. United
States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59, 73-74 (2002) (holding that a
challenge to the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea
based on a ground not raised in the district court is reviewed
for plain error); United States v. Martinz, 277 F.3d 517, 525
(4th Cir. 2002) (holding “plain error analysis is the proper
standard for review of forfeited error in the Rule 11 context”).
To meet the plain error standard: (1) there must be an error;
(2) the error must be plain; and (3) the error must affect
substantial rights. United States v. Massenburg, 564 F.3d 337,
2
342-43 (4th Cir. 2009). If the three elements of the plain
error standard are met, the court may exercise its discretion to
notice error only if the error “seriously affects the fairness,
integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (internal
quotation marks and alteration omitted).
“When a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in
open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which
he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims
relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that
occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” Tollett v.
Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Moreover, Rule 11 “does
not require a district court to inform a defendant that, by
pleading guilty, [he] is waiving [his] right to appeal any
antecedent rulings or constitutional violations.” United
States v. White, 366 F.3d 291, 299 n.6 (4th Cir. 2004)
(quotation marks omitted). Because “[a] plea of guilty and the
ensuing conviction comprehend all of the factual and legal
elements necessary to sustain a binding, final judgment of guilt
and a lawful sentence, the defendant has no non-jurisdictional
ground upon which to attack that judgment except the inadequacy
of the plea.” United States v. Bundy, 392 F.3d 641, 644-45 (4th
Cir. 2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
3
After a thorough review of the record, we conclude
that the district court did not clearly err in finding Dendy’s
plea knowing and voluntary. Therefore, because Dendy’s guilty
plea did not reserve his ability to challenge the denial of his
suppression motion, see United States v. Wiggins, 905 F.2d 51,
52 (4th Cir. 1990), and his plea was both voluntary and
intelligent, see Tollett, 411 U.S. at 267, Dendy has waived
review of any alleged Fourth Amendment violation.
Accordingly, we 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4