Case ID: f-appx_455/html/0362-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sherman LITTLE, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 11-7050.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 17, 2011.
    Decided: Nov. 23, 2011.
    
      Sherman Little, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before KING, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sherman Little appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment underlying his 2007 federal convictions. Little claimed that a defect in his indictment deprived the district court of jurisdiction to convict and sentence him. The district court denied Little’s motion, and we affirm.

A defective indictment will not deprive a district court of jurisdiction in a criminal case, United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 629-31, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002), and Little’s valid guilty plea waived all prior non-jurisdictional defects. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 98 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973); United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 279 (4th Cir.2010). Therefore, we conclude that the district court correctly denied Little’s motion.

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.