US v. Edward Huckabee, No. 12-4574 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4574 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EDWARD HUCKABEE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:11-cr-00107-FL-1) Submitted: January 29, 2013 Decided: February 15, 2013 Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey M. Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, P.S.C., Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edward Huckabee appeals the conviction and forty-five month sentence that resulted from his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 922(g)(1), 924 (2006). of his motion seized On appeal, he challenges the denial evidence suppress, violation in to of resulting suppressed. arguing the from that Fourth such he was Amendment seizure unreasonably and should that any have been We affirm. Huckabee pleaded guilty without entering a conditional guilty plea pursuant to Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal waives Procedure. all An antecedent, unconditional nonjurisdictional Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 266 67 (1973). on appeal a Fourth Amendment issue guilty plea errors. generally Tollett v. The right to challenge raised in a motion to suppress is a nonjurisdictional defense and is therefore waived by an unconditional guilty plea. 306, 320 (1983). Thus, as the Haring v. Prosise, 462 U.S. Government asserts, Huckabee waived his right to challenge on appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. Accordingly, dispense with oral we affirm argument Huckabee's because 2 the conviction. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.