Michael 0. DeVaughn appeals his conviction and six-month sentence following his guilty plea to possessing marijuana in a federal correctional facility in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791 (2000). DeVaughn’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), addressing the adequacy of DeVaughn’s plea hearing. DeVaughn has filed a supplemental pro se brief asserting claims under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, as amended, 18 U.S.C., app. 2, §§ 1-9 (2000), and a breach of his plea agreement. We affirm.

Our review of the record reveals no error. At DeVaughn’s plea hearing, the district court ascertained DeVaughn’s competency to enter a plea, that he had adequately reviewed his case with his attorney, that his plea was freely and voluntarily given, and reviewed with DeVaughn the rights he would forego by pleading guilty, the elements of the crime, the statutory maximum sentence, the impact of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the terms of his plea agreement. Given this, the district court adequately discharged its obligations under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. Further, a knowing and voluntary guilty plea waives antecedent non-jurisdictional errors, including claims of unlawful search and seizure. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). Hence, the claims raised in DeVaughn’s pro se supplemental brief regarding his conviction and plea are without merit. *

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm DeVaughn’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. Finally, although we grant DeVaughn’s motion to amend, 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.