USA v. Claud Duval

Filing

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

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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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