## United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18

- 3718

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Deon Marcell Goldsmith

Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo

____________

Submitted: December 12, 2019 Filed: February 10, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________
Before LOKEN, GRASZ, and STRA S, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Deon Goldsmith pleaded guilty to two counts of using a communication facility 1 in the commission of a felony offense. S ee 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), (d)(1 ). T he

1 A “communication facility” is defined as “any and all public and private instrumentalities used or useful in the transmission of writing, signs, signals,- 2 -

district court 2 sentenced him to 46 months in prison. On appeal, Goldsmith challenges the d enial of a pretrial suppression motion and argues that his sentence is substantively un reasonable. We affirm.

Goldsmith did not properly preserve the first of his two challenges

. G uilty pleas are “presumptively unconditional” and waive any “ non

- jurisdictional defects
and defenses ” to a conviction. United States v. Limley , 510 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2007). There is an exception : a criminal defendant can , “[ w] ith the consent of the

court and the government
, . . . reserv [e] ” the right to appeal the denial of a “specified pretrial motion” in “writing.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). But this case does not fall
within it.

Goldsmith h as a written plea agreement, but it is missing a ny reference to his suppression motion. Rather, in a section of the agreement containing the heading,

“ SENTENCING PROVISIONS ,” it says only that

[t] he parties are free to contest or defend any ruling of the Court, unless otherwise limited by this agreement, on appeal or in any other post

conviction proceeding.

R eserving “any ruling” without “specif[ y ing]” a single one is the opposite of what Rule 11(a)(2) demands , which is precise identif ication of “ what p retrial issues have been preserved for appellate review. ” Limley , 510 F.3d at 827

– 28 ( quoting Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 (a) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amend ment ) (holding that a guilty plea was unconditional even though the plea agreement stated that th e defendant “retain[ed] all rights to appeal” his conviction). Because “ [n] othing [else] in the
record” satisfies Rule 11(a)(2)’ s specificity requirement

, Goldsmith has waived his right to appeal the denial of the motion. Id. at 828.

pictures, or sounds of all kinds.” 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Included within this definition are “mail, telephone, wire, radio, and all other means of communication.” Id.

2 The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.- 3 -

Even though Goldsmith retained the right to appeal the length of his sentence, there is nothing unreasonable about it

. Se e United States v. Feemster , 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009 ) (en banc) ( explaining that we review the substantive
reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion ). The district court sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), before imposing a bottom

- of

- the

- Guidelines -r ange sentence of 46 months in prison. See United States v. Washington , 893 F.3d 1076, 1080

– 81 (8th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a sentence within the Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable). Although Goldsmith argues that the court failed to adequat ely consider several mitigating factors, the court simply gave them less weight than he would have liked . This was
within its discretion to do. See United States v. Nguyen , 829 F.3d 907, 92 5–2 6 (8th Cir. 2016) (acknowledging the “wide latitude” that district courts have in this area).

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________