UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Germaine Anthony QUARLES, Defendant-Appellant, 194 F. App'x 103

PER CURIAM: Germaine Anthony Quarles appeals his conviction and aggregate 452-month prison sentence pursuant to his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute more than five grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and two counts of possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). Finding no error, we affirm. First, Quarles argues that an incorrect offense date in one count of the indictment requires reversal of his conviction. We conclude that Quarles has waived this argument by virtue of his guilty plea.

A guilty plea effects a waiver of all nonjurisdietional defects in the indictment. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973) (stating that “when a criminal defendant has solemnly admitted in open court that he is in fact guilty of the offense with which he is charged, he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea”); United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490 (4th Cir.1993) (same). Defects in the indictment are not jurisdictional. United States v.

Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002). Quarles’s valid guilty plea therefore waives his argument concerning an error in the indictment. Quarles next argues that he cannot receive punishment for a “second or subsequent” § 924(

c) conviction when the first conviction occurs in the same proceeding. Quarles received a mandatory five-year prison sentence for one conviction for possessing a firearm during a drug trafficking offense. He received a mandatory twenty-five year term for another conviction for possessing a firearm during a different drug trafficking offense. The twenty-five-year minimum sentence applies “[i]n the case of a second or subsequent conviction.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i) (2000). The Supreme Court rejected Quarles’s argument in Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129, 132-33, 113 S.Ct. 1993, 124 L.Ed.2d 44 (1993).

Accordingly, the district court did not err in imposing an enhanced sentence. We affirm Quarles’s convictions and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED.