United States of America v.  Thomas Wayne Moxley

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-4515 
THOMAS WAYNE MOXLEY,
Defendant-Appellant. 
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge.
(CR-99-285)
Submitted: December 20, 2000
Decided: February 12, 2001
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
COUNSEL
John G. Lafratta, COWAN, NORTH & LAFRATTA, L.L.P., Rich-
mond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attor-
ney, N. George Metcalf, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Wayne Moxley, appeals his conviction for possession of
firearms pursuant to a guilty plea. Moxley, through his attorney,
raises two issues on appeal: whether the district court properly denied
his motion to suppress and whether the district court properly denied
his request for downward departure for diminished capacity. See U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K2.13 (1998). Moxley filed a
motion for leave to file a pro se supplemental brief and supplemental
brief challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g) (West
Supp. 2000). We grant Moxley’s motion to file a pro se supplemental
brief. The Government notes Moxley’s waiver of appellate rights in
his plea agreement, and we dismiss Moxley’s appeal based upon his
waiver.
Police officers responded to a call for assistance placed by Moxley
regarding a dispute with his neighbor. During the ensuing investiga-
tion, the neighbor reported that Moxley had threatened him with a
firearm; Moxley admitted to owning several firearms; and Moxley
confirmed the police officer’s previous knowledge that he was a con-
victed felon. Officers obtained a search warrant and discovered the
firearms in question during the search. After the motion to suppress
the physical evidence was denied, Moxley entered a guilty plea pursu-
ant to an unconditional plea agreement. He was sentenced to ninety-
seven-months’ imprisonment.
We have reviewed the record and find that Moxley entered a valid,
unconditional guilty plea and did not preserve his right to appeal. See
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2); United States v. Wessels, 936 F.2d 165, 167
(4th Cir. 1991). A valid guilty plea constitutes an admission of the
material elements of the crime, see McCarthy v. United States, 394
U.S. 459, 466 (1969), and waives non-jurisdictional errors, including
claims of unlawful search and seizure based on the Fourth Amend-
ment. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973). Accord-
ingly, we dismiss Moxley’s appeal of his conviction and sentence
based upon the waiver of appellate review in his plea agreement. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
2 UNITED STATES v. MOXLEY

-- 2 of 3 --

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3 UNITED STATES v. MOXLEY

-- 3 of 3 --