IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-30990
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT PINSINCE, also known
as Lenes Jackson,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. CR-94-50077-01
- - - - - - - - - -
July 2, 1996
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Pinsince appeals his guilty plea conviction and
sentence for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). (His motion to file an out-of-
time reply brief is GRANTED.)
Pinsince contends that the district court erred in denying his
motion to suppress statements and physical evidence seized at the
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
time of his arrest. But, as the Government notes, a valid and
unconditional guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects in
the proceedings leading to the conviction, including a Fourth
Amendment claim. See United States v. Smallwood, 920 F.2d 1231,
1240 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1238 (1991).
In light of this, Pinsince asserts, for the first time in his
reply brief, that his guilty plea was unknowing because counsel
inadvertently overlooked the fact that the plea agreement did not
contain a reservation of Pinsince's right to review the denial of
his motion to suppress. Pursuant to our usual practice, we will
not consider on this direct appeal an ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel claim. See United States v. Bounds, 943 F.2d 541, 544 (5th
Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 135 (1993).
Finally, Pinsince claims that the district court erred in
awarding a two-level enhancement to his base offense level,
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), based on its finding that he
possessed a dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense
of conviction. The court did not clearly err in awarding this
enhancement. See United States v. Aguilera-Zapata, 901 F.2d 1209,
1215 (5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED
- 2 -