United States v. Christina Varela, 669 F. App'x 775

Christina Yvonne Varela pleaded guilty (no plea agreement) to conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute ≥50 kg of marijuana and was sentenced to 37 months.
DEA agents used a tracking device hidden in seized marijuana to follow a vehicle to Varela’s home in El Paso, then conducted a warrantless entry after a purported "knock-and-talk."
Agents seized evidence during the warrantless search; Varela moved to suppress that evidence, arguing she did not consent to the search.
The district court denied the suppression motion, finding consent; Varela objected but ultimately entered an unconditional guilty plea.
On appeal Varela challenged the suppression ruling, but the Fifth Circuit held she waived non-jurisdictional pre-plea defects by pleading guilty unconditionally and did not properly preserve a conditional plea.

Issue	Varela's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Varela consented to the warrantless search of her home	She did not consent; suppression of seized evidence required	Agents lawfully obtained consent via a knock-and-talk and entry/search was permitted	The challenge was waived by Varela’s unconditional guilty plea; appeal of suppression denied
Whether the suppression issue was preserved for appeal after the plea	Varela indicated disagreement with factual recitation about consent but did not clearly reserve the issue	The plea was unconditional and thus waived non-jurisdictional defects	No conditional plea or clear reservation was made; waiver applies
Whether a defendant can implicitly preserve a pretrial ruling without formal reservation	Implicit preservation argued by counsel’s on-the-record remarks	Government contends Rule 11(a)(2) requires written reservation or clear record of conditional plea	Court: conditional pleas cannot be implied; record did not show intent to preserve so waiver stands
Whether any variance from Rule 11 is harmless here	Varela suggests her plea entry remarks show intent to appeal suppression	Government argues no plain reservation and no opposition by court/Gov to conditional plea was recorded	Court finds no clear indication of conditional plea; any variance not excusing waiver

United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2007) (explains that a defendant must clearly reserve the right to appeal a pretrial ruling to avoid waiving issues by a guilty plea)
United States v. Wise, 179 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1999) (holds a conditional guilty plea must be explicit; cannot be implied from the record)