United States v. Dontay Wells , 582 F. App'x 254 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4333
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DONTAY MARKEITH WELLS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:12-cr-00544-TMC-1)
Submitted: August 26, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dontay Markeith Wells pleaded nolo contendere to
assaulting a federal correctional officer, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 111(a) (West 2012 & Supp. 2014). The district court
sentenced Wells to thirty days of imprisonment and he now
appeals. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the
district court erred in failing to rule on Wells’ pro se motions
filed prior to his entering his plea to the charge. Wells has
filed a pro se supplemental brief raising additional issues. *
Finding no error, we affirm.
“When a defendant pleads guilty, he waives all
nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings conducted prior to
entry of the plea.” United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263,
279 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). “Thus, the defendant who has pled guilty has no
non-jurisdictional ground upon which to attack that judgment
except the inadequacy of the plea, . . . or the government's
power to bring any indictment at all.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted); see also Tollett v. Henderson, 411
U.S. 258, 267 (1973) (holding valid guilty plea waives any
*
We have reviewed the issues raised in Wells’ pro se
supplemental brief and conclude they lack merit.
2
challenge to indicting grand jury). We have reviewed the record
and conclude that Wells’ plea was knowing and intelligent.
Therefore, Wells has waived the right to challenge any
non-jurisdictional defects occurring prior to his plea.
We have examined the entire record in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues
for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. This court requires that counsel inform Wells, in
writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the
United States for further review. If Wells requests that a
petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition
would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for
leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must
state that a copy thereof was served on Wells. 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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3