Opinion ID: 1189970
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: martin likewise waived the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to disclose the confidential informant's identity.

Text: This analysis of waiver applies with equal force to Martin's challenge of the district court's denial of his motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant. Martin, however, argues that he has not waived his right to obtain review of this issue on appeal because he reserved in writing for appeal the issue of his motion to suppress within days of filing the motion to disclose the identity of CI, and the court's sealed Memorandum Opinion and Order addressed both motions. [5] However, as indicated above, the procedural rule permitting the defendant to enter a conditional plea of guilty while reserving the right, on appeal, to review an adverse determination of any specified pretrial motions imposes an affirmative duty on the defendant to preserve all potential collateral challenges through the preservation mechanism of Rule 11(a)(2). Pickett, 941 F.2d at 416 (emphasis in original). Furthermore, Rule 11(a)(2) explicitly requires that, when entering a conditional plea, the reservation of a right to appeal a specified motion be in writing. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2). Despite this affirmative duty, Martin did not provide a written reservation of the issue of the CI's identity for appeal. Nor does the transcript of Martin's plea hearing give any indication that he specifically reserved this issue for appeal. See Ormsby, 252 F.3d at 848 n. 3; United States v. Yasak, 884 F.2d 996, 1000 (7th Cir.1989) (finding that a defendant did not waive his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss despite the lack of a writing reserving his right to appeal the issue where the plea hearing transcript plainly shows that both parties agreed to the conditional plea, that the district court accepted the plea, and that the court understood its ruling on Yasak's motion to dismiss was the specific (and dispositive) issue for appeal). The transcript of Martin's plea hearing in this case, however, makes clear that the only issue preserved for appeal was the denial of Martin's Motion to Suppress. [6] For the foregoing reasons, we find that Martin has failed to reserve the right to appeal the denial of his motion to disclose the identity of the confidential informant.