
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Peter Osamudiamen EZEKOR, also known as Iyekhoetin V. Omoragbon, also known as Peter O. Ezekor, also known as Iyekhoetin Omoragbon, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Peter O. Ezekor, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 08-20003, 08-20005
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 18, 2009.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Patrick F. McCann, Law Offices of Patrick F. McCann, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Peter Osamudiamen Ezekor pleaded guilty to two separate indictments charging him with illegal reentry following a previous deportation and conspiracy to launder funds. Ezekor received concurrent sentences of 94 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. His cases have been consolidated for purposes of appeal. Ezekor argues that his convictions must be reversed because the district court erred in summarily denying his motion to dismiss the indictments based on a speedy trial violation.

“When a defendant enters a voluntary and unconditional guilty plea, the plea has the effect of waiving all nonjurisdictional defects in the prior proceedings.” United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 238 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 336, 169 L.Ed.2d 236 (2007). The waiver applies to alleged speedy trial violations. United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915 (5th Cir.1992). Thus, the Government’s contention has merit, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See id.

Ezekor has filed a motion requesting leave to file a pro se supplemental brief. He contends that his appellate counsel failed to raise important issues that were in dispute before the district court. Because Ezekor has no right to hybrid representation, his motion is DENIED. See United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447, 449 & n. 1 (5th Cir.1999). 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     