578 F. App'x 444 | 5th Cir. | 2014
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 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 Case: 13-40911 Document: 00512740352 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/20/2014 No. 13-40911 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. 2
NOTES
[*] Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.