United States of America v. Theotis Thornton

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-2019
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Theotis Thornton
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________
Submitted: June 8, 2026
Filed: July 7, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Theotis Thornton pleaded guilty to possessing methamphetamine and
phencyclidine with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(a), being a
felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and possessing a firearm
in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). He appeals

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
his conviction, arguing that the district court1 erred in denying his motion to suppress
evidence seized during a search of a house. We affirm.
The Government notes that Thornton’s appeal is untimely because it was filed
one day after the fourteen-day period prescribed by Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 4(b)(1)(A) ended. “Normally, when a criminal defendant’s notice of
appeal is fewer than thirty days late, as here, we remand to the district court” so that
it may decide whether to extend the filing deadline under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 4(b)(4). United States v. Austin, 217 F.3d 595, 598 (8th Cir. 2000). But
because “[t]he time limit on criminal appeals is a claims-processing rule . . . there is
no jurisdictional bar to our considering the appeal.” United States v. Whitbeck, 869
F.3d 618, 619 (8th Cir. 2017) (considering merits of appeal after administrative
panel allowed it to proceed despite potential timeliness issue).
Thornton’s guilty plea was unconditional. “It is well established in this
Circuit that a defendant who pleads guilty waives all nonjurisdictional defenses,”
including “all suppression issues not expressly reserved by a conditional plea.”
United States v. Villa-Madrigal, 683 F.3d 924, 926 (8th Cir. 2012) (citation
modified). As in Villa-Madrigal, Thornton entered a knowing and voluntary plea,
and “there is nothing in the record that could have reasonably led [him] to expect
that he could appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.” See id. (citation
modified). Therefore, he cannot challenge the denial of his motion.
Accordingly, we affirm. See United States v. Limley, 510 F.3d 825, 828 (8th
Cir. 2007).
______________________________
1 The Honorable D. P. Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Arkansas.

-- 2 of 2 --