USA v. Marlin Jean

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10911
Before J ORDAN, JILL PRYOR , and L AGOA , 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: 2 of 3

-- 2 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).
USCA11 Case: 23-10911 Document: 39-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --