
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Armando Betancourt GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-5013.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 4, 2005.
    Decided: Dec. 19, 2005.
    Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy E. Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Armando Betancourt Gonzalez pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). He was sentenced to the statutory minimum term of five years’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but addressing whether the district court committed plain error in denying the motion to suppress evidence. Gonzalez was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not do so. The Government did not file a brief. Finding no error, we affirm.

It has long been established that a valid guilty plea waives all antecedent nonjurisdictional defects. See Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973); United States v. Cain, 155 F.3d 840, 842 (7th Cir.1998). Because a review of the plea colloquy shows that Gonzalez’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and without the benefit of a plea agreement reserving the right to challenge the denial of the motion to suppress, he has waived his right to challenge that ruling.

Because Gonzalez was sentenced to the statutory minimum term of imprisonment, we find no error with the application of the sentencing guidelines.

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record in this case and found no error. Accordingly, we affirm Gonzalez’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Gonzalez, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If he requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes 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 Gonzalez. 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  