USA v. Claud Duval


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Claud Lamy Duval. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Download PDF
Case: 14-14386 Date Filed: 05/15/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-14386 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cr-20552-WPD-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CLAUD LAMY DUVAL, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (May 15, 2015) Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-14386 Date Filed: 05/15/2015 Page: 2 of 3 Claud Duval appeals pro se the denial of his petition for a writ of error ad testificandum. We affirm. The district court did not err by denying Duval’s petition. Even if we read Duval’s petition liberally to argue that his indictment was defective because it was not signed by the grand jury foreperson, he was not entitled to relief. Duval’s knowing, voluntary, and unconditional pleas of guilty “waive[d] all nonjurisdictional defects in the proceeding.” United States v. Payne, 763 F.3d 1301, 1303 n.1 (11th Cir. 2014). The purported absence of the foreperson’s signature was “a mere technical irregularity,” Hobby v. United States, 468 U.S. 339, 345, 104 S. Ct. 3093, 3096 (1984), that did not affect the authority of the district court to enter its judgment. See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630, 122 S. Ct. 1781, 1785 (2002). Duval could have moved to dismiss the charges against him based on an alleged “defect in [his] indictment,” but the motion had to be filed before trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3). And a motion that challenged the jurisdiction of the district court had to be filed “while [his] case [was] pending.” Id. 12(b)(2). Duval’s case was no longer pending after the 14-day period to appeal his conviction expired on April 25, 2014. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i); Akins v. United States, 204 F.3d 1086, 1089 n.1 (11th Cir. 2000). In any event, the record establishes that the foreperson signed Duval’s indictment, and the Clerk of the district court redacted the foreperson’s signature before filing the indictment as a 2 Case: 14-14386 Date Filed: 05/15/2015 public record. We AFFIRM the denial of Duval’s petition. 3 Page: 3 of 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?