IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30359

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GEORGE CELESTINE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:06-CR-60059-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

George Celestine appeals the 120-month sentence imposed following his

conditional guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and

cocaine base. In his plea agreement, Celestine reserved the “right to appeal as

it relates to Double Jeopardy and the Speedy Trial Act.” On appeal, Celestine

contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the

indictment on the ground that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had

been violated. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss Celestine’s appeal

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 22, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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: 12-30359 Document: 00512216510 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2013
No. 12-30359

on the ground that the Sixth Amendment issue was not preserved for appeal,

and thus, waived by Celestine’s guilty plea. Celestine opposes the motion to

dismiss. 

A voluntary and unconditional guilty plea waives an appellant’s right to

challenge any nonjurisdictional defects, such as a speedy trial claim, in the

proceedings leading to a conviction. United States v. Bell, 966 F.2d 914, 915 (5th

Cir. 1992). However, by entering into a “conditional plea” pursuant to Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2), like Celestine’s plea in the instant matter,

a defendant may preserve the right to appeal an adverse ruling on a pretrial

motion. A conditional guilty plea must be made in writing, be consented to by

the Government, and be approved by the district court. Rule 11(a)(2). 

In the instant case, the reservation in Celestine’s agreement was

unambiguous and reserved only claims relating to double jeopardy and the

Speedy Trial Act. Celestine suggests that, because he did not object to the

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation regarding his claim pursuant to

the Speedy Trial Act, it is illogical to conclude that he would preserve such a

claim in his agreement. However, Celestine’s suggestion fails to recognize that

he did not object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation relating

to his double jeopardy claim, yet preserved such a claim in his agreement. 

Furthermore, after the district court ruled on his motion to dismiss, but before

Celestine entered his plea, Celestine filed another motion to dismiss the

indictment exclusively relying on the Speedy Trial Act. Thus, it is logical to

conclude that Celestine intended to reserve the right to appeal a claim pursuant

to the Speedy Trial Act and that such a reservation was not a “careless

oversight” on the part of trial counsel. Celestine’s valid guilty plea waived his

speedy trial claim pursuant to the Sixth Amendment because it was not

preserved in the plea bargain and does not rise to the level of a jurisdictional

challenge. See Bell, 966 F.2d at 915. Accordingly, the judgment of the district

2

 Case: 12-30359 Document: 00512216510 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2013
No. 12-30359

court is AFFIRMED. The Government’s motion to dismiss the appeal is

DENIED. 

3

 Case: 12-30359 Document: 00512216510 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/22/2013