UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6145

JOHN JERMAINE BECKHAM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,

Chief District Judge. (3:13-cv-00558-FDW)

Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: February 9, 2015

Before DUNCAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Jermaine Beckham, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Jermaine Beckham pled guilty in 2000 to 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least fifty 

grams of cocaine base and was sentenced to 300 months of 

imprisonment. Beckham was sentenced as a career offender under

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1. Beckham previously 

filed two prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions contesting his 

conviction and sentence. In the instant case, Beckham 

challenged his career offender designation under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 (2012) and via writs for error coram nobis and audita 

querela. As noted by the district court, the Government 

conceded that Beckham’s career offender enhancement was 

erroneous in light of our later decision in United States v. 

Simmons, 649 F.3d 237 (4th Cir. 2011), but argued that Beckham 

had waived his appellate rights to challenge his sentence in his 

plea agreement, which was reviewed at his plea hearing. The 

district court agreed and dismissed Beckham’s petition. For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm. 

A criminal defendant may waive the right to appeal if 

that waiver is knowing and intelligent. United States v. 

Poindexter, 492 F.3d 263, 270 (4th Cir. 2007). Generally, if 

the district court fully questions a defendant regarding the 

waiver of his right to appeal during a plea colloquy performed 

in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the waiver is both valid 
3

and enforceable. United States v. Johnson, 410 F.3d 137, 151 

(4th Cir. 2005). Whether a defendant validly waived his right 

to appeal is a question of law this court reviews de novo. 

United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162, 168 (4th Cir. 2005). 

Where the Government seeks to enforce an appeal waiver and there 

is no claim that it breached its obligations under the plea 

agreement, a court will enforce the waiver if the record 

establishes that the defendant knowingly and intelligently 

agreed to waive the right to appeal, and the issue being 

appealed is within the scope of the waiver. Id.

The district court found that Beckham did not allege 

that his guilty plea was unknowing or involuntary; the court 

nonetheless found that the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 plea colloquy 

established that Beckham knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty 

and waived his appellate rights to challenge his conviction and 

sentence, except for claims of ineffective assistance and 

prosecutorial misconduct. Beckham does not contest the validity 

of his plea waiver on appeal but argues that his career offender 

designation falls outside the scope of his waiver. 

When a defendant pleads guilty, he waives all 

nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings conducted prior to 

entry of the plea. United States v. Bundy, 392 F.3d 641, 644 

(4th Cir. 2004). A criminal defendant’s guilty plea represents 

a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the 
4

criminal process, Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 

(1973), so that a defendant who has pled guilty has no nonjurisdictional ground upon which to attack that judgment except 

the inadequacy of the plea or the government’s power to bring 

any indictment at all. United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 

263, 279 (4th Cir. 2010). 

Accordingly, because Beckham does not argue that his 

plea waiver and guilty plea were unknowing or involuntary, we 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Beckham v. United States, No. 3:13-cv-00558-FDW (W.D.N.C. Dec. 

18, 2013). We dispense with oral argument as the facts and 

legal materials are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED