Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): or nolo contendere, reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion. A defendant who prevails on appeal may then withdraw the plea. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2). Rule 11(h) provides that “[a] variance from the requirements of this rule is harmless error if it does not affect substantial rights.” Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(h). We have held that conditional pleas must comply with Rule 11(a)(2), in that pretrial issues must be preserved in writing and the government must consent expressly to the entry of a conditional plea. See Pierre, 120 F.3d at 1155 (noting that a “conditional plea must be in writing and must be consented to by the court and by the government”); United States v. Betancourth, 554 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). In Pierre, we specifically noted, “[assuming 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a counsels oral statements at a plea hearing  that the plea being entered was conditional  did not satisfy the rule 11 writing requirement (B) holding that the government was not responsible for delay from withdrawal of guilty plea (C) holding that a defendants guilty plea was unconditional where the guilty plea was not in writing and the government did not consent to it being conditional (D) holding right to speedy trial is nonjurisdictional and therefore waived by voluntary and unconditional guilty plea (E) holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea
Output (English): holding that a counsels oral statements at a plea hearing  that the plea being entered was conditional  did not satisfy the rule 11 writing requirement