Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Todd F. BRITTON-HARR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-08-20
Citations: 578 F. App'x 444
Docket Number: No. 13-40911
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Todd F. BRITTON-HARR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 578
Pages: 444–445

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Todd F. BRITTON-HARR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-40911
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Aug. 20, 2014.
Jeffery Alan Babcock, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Rene C. Flores, Esq., Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Todd F. Britton-Harr appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for possession with the intent to distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana. Britton-Harr argues that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary because the Government destroyed exculpatory evidence.
Prior to the guilty plea, the district court held a hearing on Britton-Harr's claims and ruled that the Government did not intentionally destroy any evidence. Britton-Harr does not raise any arguments that undermine that factual determination. Moreover, under circuit precedent, Britton-Harr's guilty plea precludes him from raising a Brady claim. See United States v. Conroy, 567 F.3d 174, 178-79 (5th Cir.2009); see also Orman v. Cain, 228 F.3d 616, 617 (5th Cir.2000); Matthew v. Johnson, 201 F.3d 353, 361-62 (5th Cir.2000). Britton-Harr therefore identifies no basis for vacating his guilty plea.
Britton-Harr also requests a remand for the trial court to hear his motion based on newly discovered evidence as well as his other pending postconviction motions. Contrary to Britton-Harr's assertion, his pleading was not a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence but rather an "unauthorized motion which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain." United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994). Additionally, Britton-Harr's notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction over his postconviction motions. See United States v. Green, 882 F.2d 999, 1001 (5th Cir.1989). Accordingly, he is not entitled to a remand to allow the district court to hear the motions.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.