United States v. Claud Lamy Duval

604 F. App'x 910

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: May 15, 2015
• Docket: 14-14386
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Claud Duval appeals pro se the denial of his petition for a writ of error ad testifi-candum. We affirm.

The district court did not err by denying Duval’s petition. Even if we read Duval’s petition liberally to argue that his indictment was defective because it was not signed by the grand jury foreperson, he was not entitled to relief. Duval’s knowing, voluntary, and unconditional pleas of guilty “waive[d] all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceeding.” United States v. Payne, 763 F.3d 1301, 1303 n. 1 (11th Cir.2014). The purported absence of the foreperson’s signature was “a mere technical irregularity,” Hobby v. United States, 468 U.S. 339, 345, 104 S.Ct. 3093, 3096, 82 L.Ed.2d 260 (1984), that did not affect the authority of the district court to enter its judgment. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 1785, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002). Duval could have moved to dismiss the charges against him based on an alleged “defect in [his] indictment,” but the motion had to be filed before trial. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3). And a motion that challenged the jurisdiction of the district court had to be filed “while [his] case [was] pending.” Id. 12(b)(2). Duval’s case was no longer pending after the 14-day period to appeal his conviction expired on April 25, 2014. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(l)(A)(i); Akins v. United States, 204 F.3d 1086, 1089 n. 1 (11th Cir.2000). In any event, the record establishes that the foreperson signed Duval’s indictment, and the Clerk of the district court redacted the foreperson’s signature before filing the indictment as a public record.

We AFFIRM the denial of Duval’s petition.