* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a dec ision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This Order and Judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines o f law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 13, 2005

Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. IRA LEE WILKINS, Defendant - Appellant. No. 04-5189 (D.C. No. 04-CR-60-K) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , McKAY and HENRY , Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Ira Lee Wilkins appeals the dis trict court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confessions that he clai ms were given involuntarily and in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Exerci sing jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM.- 2 - BACKGROUND In early 2004, the United States Postal Inspection Service launched an investigation into the tampering of a credit card a ccount by a person later identified as Drukyel Gaines. Gaines changed the a ccount information to indicate that the cardholder was a Lorenzo Gray of Tulsa, Ok lahoma. Shortly after these changes were made, a person purporting to be Lorenz o Gray requested a duplicate card be issued and mailed to his address in Tulsa. This card was used to make over $13,000 worth of purchases; additional cash ad vances in excess of $5,800 were attempted but denied. When first interviewed by Postal Inspector Scott We st, Gaines claimed that Lorenzo Gray was her boyfriend. She further statedthat Gray was the person in a surveillance photograph taken of a black man wearin g large diamond earrings and an “OU Sooners” baseball-style cap and using the Lo renzo Gray credit card. West later went to Gaines’ residence to obtain a po sitive identification of Gray based on the photograph. When he arrived, Wilkins answered the door. West thought that Wilkins looked like the man in the pho tograph and noticed that Wilkins was wearing earrings that appeared to be id entical to the ones worn in the photograph. West told Wilkins that he thought the picture was of him; Wilkins maintained it was a picture of Lorenzo Gray.1 At the suppression hearing, West testified that Wil kins was read his

Miranda rights, that Wilkins acknowledged that he u nderstood his rights, and that Wilkins nevertheless stated he would talk to the in spectors. On the other hand, Wilkins testified that he was “absolutely not” readhis Miranda rights. - 3 - On April 21, 2004, West (along with another postal inspector) went to Gaines’ residence with a warrant for her arrest. A fter placing Gaines in custody, West discovered Wilkins in the back bedroom. He al so found an “OU Sooners” baseball cap that matched the hat in the surveillan ce photograph. The inspectors then took Wilkins back to the back bedroom, and que stioned him about his involvement in the credit card scheme. The parties dispute whether Wilkins was orally read and whether he orally waived his Mirand a rights; 1 both parties acknowledge Wilkins did not sign a written waiver. Wilkins eventually confessed, verbally and in writing, that he was the person in the surveillance photos and that he had used the credit card. Wilkins was indicted for conspiracy and access devi ce fraud. He moved to suppress any statements obtained during the April 2 1 interrogation on the grounds that he was not properly given his Miranda warnings . After a hearing, the district court denied the motion, finding that Miranda warni ngs were in fact given. The district court also noted that Wilkins might have b een insinuating that there was some coercion involved in obtaining his confession, but declined to rule on that2 The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow a def endant to enter a “conditional” guilty plea, “reserving in writing th e right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). No such written document appears in the record, nor does the district court’s docket sheet indicate the entry of a writte n, conditional plea. - 4 - issue. Wilkins then pleaded guilty to conspiracy and was sentenced to nine months in prison.

DISCUSSION On appeal, Wilkins raises various arguments challen ging the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress his confessions. However, the record reflects that Wilkins entered an unconditional plea of guilty. 2 When a defendant voluntarily enters such a plea, “he may not thereaf ter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional right s that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” United States v. Salazar , 323 F.3d 852, 856 (10th Cir. 2003) (quoting Tollett v. Henderson , 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973)). Because Wilkins’ confessions occurred prior to his plea, he may not now argue that those confessions were taken unconstitutionally. Therefo re, we must AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT- 5 - David M. Ebel Circuit Judge