Case ID: f-appx_155/html/0835-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Myron JEFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-6040.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Nov. 18, 2005.
    Camille R. McMullen, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Memphis, TN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mary C. Jermann, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Memphis, TN, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before RYAN, GILMAN, and COOK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Myron Jefferson entered a guilty plea to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) after the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence. Jefferson now seeks to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress, contending that his was a conditional guilty plea in accordance with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2). The government counters that Jefferson waived his right to appellate review by failing to comply with the dictates of the rule — preserving in writing the specific issue to be appealed. We agree with the government.

This court strictly enforces the requirement that the conditional plea be in writing. United States v. Herrera, 265 F.3d 349, 351-52 (6th Cir.2001) (holding that a counsel’s oral statements at a plea hearing — that the plea being entered was conditional — did not satisfy the Rule 11 writing requirement). Jefferson relies on the written “Minutes” from his change-of-plea hearing as satisfying the writing requirement. But since Rule 11(a)(2) “places an affirmative duty on the defendant to preserve all potential collateral challenges” in writing, United States v. Pickett, 941 F.2d 411, 416 (6th Cir.l991)(first emphasis added), the clerical notation cannot suffice to preserve Jefferson’s right to appeal the suppression order. We thus dismiss Jefferson’s appeal of the denial of his suppression motion.

As for Jefferson’s appeal of his sentence, we rejected his exact Apprendi-based argument in United States v. Barnett, 398 F.3d 516 (6th Cir.2005). Nevertheless, we vacate and remand for resentencing, with the acquiescence of the government, under the prevailing non-mandatory regime. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738,160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).