Court Opinion

ID: 9918874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 20:00:52.946046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:27.780291
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10911    Document: 39-1     Date Filed: 01/16/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10911
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       MARLIN JEAN,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20018-RKA-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10911         Document: 39-1          Date Filed: 01/16/2024          Page: 2 of 3

       2                          Opinion of the Court                         23-10911

       Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Marlin Jean appeals his convictions for possession of 15 or
       more unauthorized access devices and aggravated identity theft.
       He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to
       suppress certain evidence. The government, in turn, moves for
       summary affirmance, arguing that Jean waived his right to chal-
       lenge the district court’s suppression ruling when he entered an un-
       conditional guilty plea. We grant the government’s motion.
               Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
       the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
       sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
       or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a mat-
       ter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the out-
       come of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the ap-
       peal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158,
       1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 1 The government argues that its position in
       this case is clearly right as a matter of law.
              A defendant’s guilty plea, made knowingly, voluntarily, and
       with the benefit of competent counsel, waives all nonjurisdictional
       challenges to a conviction. See United States v. Smith, 532 F.3d 1125,
       1127 (11th Cir. 2008); United States v. Yunis, 723 F.2d 795, 796 (11th

       1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we

       adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed
       down before October 1, 1981.
USCA11 Case: 23-10911        Document: 39-1        Date Filed: 01/16/2024        Page: 3 of 3

       23-10911                  Opinion of the Court                              3

       Cir. 1984). The question whether a district court erroneously de-
       nied a motion to suppress is a nonjurisdictional issue waived by a
       guilty plea. See United States v. Charles, 757 F.3d 1222, 1227 n.4 (11th
       Cir. 2014). When a defendant wishes to plead guilty and preserve a
       nonjurisdictional issue for appeal, he must enter a conditional plea
       in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2).
       United States v. Pierre, 120 F.3d 1153, 1155 (11th Cir. 1997). A condi-
       tional plea requires the consent of both the district court and the
       government. Id.
              Here, Jean entered an unconditional, knowing, and volun-
       tary guilty plea. 2 Therefore, he has waived appellate review of the
       denial of his motion to suppress. See Charles, 757 F.3d at 1227 n.4.
       Because the government’s position is clearly correct as a matter of
       law, we GRANT the government’s motion for summary affir-
       mance. Groendyke Transp., Inc., 406 F.2d at 1162.
              AFFIRMED.

       2 The district court found that Jean was fully competent and capable of enter-

       ing an informed plea and that he entered a knowing and voluntary plea. Be-
       cause he has not challenged these determinations in his opening brief, he has
       forfeited any argument that his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary. See
       United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc).