OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Pamela Lyles and John C. Edmond appeal from their convictions following their guilty pleas to mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West 2000). The Appellants claim first that the bankruptcy court order barring Lyles from practicing before it was void and, therefore, the purported violation of that order could not form the basis for a crime. However, a valid guilty plea constitutes an admission of the material elements of the crime, McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), and waives non-jurisdictional errors, such as defects in the indictment. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). Accordingly, the Appellants have waived their rights to contest this issue.
The Appellants also claim that the district court abused its discretion in denying their joint motion to withdraw their guilty pleas. This court reviews the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. Craig, 985 F.2d 175, 178 (4th Cir,1993). Based on the factors set out in United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.1991), and after reviewing the transcript of the Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 hearing, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion.
To the extent that the Appellants claim that they were denied effective assistance of counsel, we decline to review such claims on direct appeal because they cannot show conclusively from the face of the record that counsel provided ineffective representation. United States v. Richard son, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.1999) (providing standard and noting that ineffective assistance of counsel claims generally should be raised by motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000)), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1096, 120 S.Ct. 837, 145 L.Ed.2d 704 (2000).
Accordingly, we affirm Lyles’ and Edmond’s convictions and sentences. Lyles has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus which we construe as a motion for bail pending appeal. In light of the disposition of these appeals, we deny the motion as moot. 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.