IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-31286 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LARRY WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 01-CR-139-ALL-B -------------------- January 29, 2003

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Larry Williams appeals following his guilty plea conviction

and sentence on one count of possession with intent to distribute

50 grams or more of cocaine base.

. Williams has

moved to file a “supplemental brief.” Williams’ motion, which we

construe as a motion to exceed the page limits, is GRANTED.

Williams argues that his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and

Sixth Amendments were violated and also contends that his

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 01-31286 -2-

confession was obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona,

(1966). A voluntary guilty plea waives all non-

jurisdictional defects in the proceedings against the defendant.

See Tollett v. Henderson,

(1973); United States

v. Smallwood,

(5th Cir. 1991). Williams has

not asserted a non-jurisdictional defect nor has he challenged the

voluntariness of his guilty plea. His constitutional and Miranda

arguments are therefore waived.

Williams also contends that his indictment is insufficient

under Apprendi v. New Jersey,

(2000), because it fails

to allege drug quantity and “type of weapon.” He argues that the

alleged omissions are jurisdictional errors which deprived the

district court of authority to try and convict him.

Defects in the indictment do not deprive a court of

jurisdiction. See United States v. Cotton,

,

(2002). Moreover, Williams has not shown that his

indictment was defective under Apprendi for failing to charge a

specific drug quantity or type of weapon. The indictment’s

allegation of 50 grams or more of cocaine base was sufficient. See

United States v. Moreci,

(5th Cir. 2002) (an

indictment’s allegation of a minimum quantity of drugs, rather than

a specific quantity, satisfies Apprendi). Williams’ argument

regarding the indictment’s failure to allege “type of weapon” is

frivolous as

is a drug statute and does not concern

weapons. No. 01-31286 -3-

Williams also submits that the district court erred in adding

two points to his offense level under U.S.S.G. §

2D1.1(b)(1) for possession of a dangerous weapon during the

offense. As part of his plea agreement Williams waived his right

to appeal his sentence unless it was in excess of the statutory

maximum or constituted an upward departure. Because the record

shows that Williams’ appeal waiver was valid, see United States v.

Portillo,

(5th Cir. 1994), and his sentence does

not fit within the exceptions to the waiver provision, the portion

of Williams’s appeal relating to his sentence is DISMISSED. See

United States v. Martinez,

(5th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART; MOTION GRANTED.