United States v. Jorge Alvarado , 482 F. App'x 951 ( 2012 )

Case: 11-40840 Document: 00512015161 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/10/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 10, 2012
No. 11-40840
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JORGE SEBASTIAN ALVARADO,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:10-CR-11-1
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and OWEN and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jorge Sebastian Alvarado pleaded guilty to possession with intent to
distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine and was sentenced to 120 months in
prison. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence
that he contends was unconstitutionally obtained during a traffic stop. We agree
with the Government that Alvarado waived his right to appeal this issue by
entering an unconditional guilty plea.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 11-40840 Document: 00512015161 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/10/2012
No. 11-40840
A voluntary and unconditional guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional
defects in the prior proceedings, including the right to raise any further
objections based on a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress. United
States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 238 (5th Cir. 2007). Although a defendant may
plead guilty conditionally and preserve appeal rights, the plea must be in
writing, must have the consent of the prosecution and approval of the court, and
must explicitly designate the issues being preserved for appeal. FED. R. CRIM.
P. 11(a)(2); United States v. Wise, 179 F.3d 184, 186-87 (5th Cir. 1999).
There was no written plea agreement in this case. In addition, there is no
other evidence in the record that Alvarado expressed an intent to appeal the
denial of his motion to suppress such that any technical noncompliance with
Rule 11(a)(2) might be excused. See Stevens, 487 F.3d at 238. As the record
lacks any evidence of a reservation of rights, Alvarado may not appeal the
district court’s suppression ruling. See Wise, 179 F.3d at 187.
AFFIRMED.
2