United States v. Edward Huckabee

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4574

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD HUCKABEE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:11-cr-00107-FL-1)

Submitted: January 29, 2013 Decided: February 15, 2013

Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey M. Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Edward Huckabee appeals the conviction and forty-five

month sentence that resulted from his guilty plea to possession

of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2006). On appeal, he challenges the denial

of his motion to suppress, arguing that he was unreasonably

seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that any

evidence resulting from such seizure should have been

suppressed. We affirm.

Huckabee pleaded guilty without entering a conditional

guilty plea pursuant to Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. An unconditional guilty plea generally

waives all antecedent, nonjurisdictional errors. Tollett v.

Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266–67 (1973). The right to challenge

on appeal a Fourth Amendment issue raised in a motion to

suppress is a nonjurisdictional defense and is therefore waived

by an unconditional guilty plea. Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S.

306, 320 (1983). Thus, as the Government asserts, Huckabee

waived his right to challenge on appeal the denial of the motion

to suppress.

Accordingly, we affirm Huckabee's conviction. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3