Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe CORONADO, also known as Felipe Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-24
Citations: 202 F. App'x 815
Docket Number: No. 05-41518
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe CORONADO, also known as Felipe Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 202
Pages: 815–816

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe CORONADO, also known as Felipe Gonzalez, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-41518
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 24, 2006.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Jose Raul Hernandez, Jon Karl Schmid, Law Office of Jon Karl Schmid, Brownsville, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Felipe Coronado appeals his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Because Coronado entered an unconditional guilty plea, he waived all nonjurisdictional defects. Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). Accordingly, he waived the right to challenge the district court's order striking his motion to suppress, see United States v. Wise, 179 F.3d 184, 186 (5th Cir.1999), and any denial of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel that is unrelated to the validity of his guilty plea. See United States v. Glinsey, 209 F.3d 386, 392 (5th Cir.2000). The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to review Coronado's claim that the alleged Sixth Amendment deprivation affected the validity of his guilty plea. See United States v. Higdon, 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir.1987).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.