United States v. Jose Perez-Yanez, 511 F. App'x 532

DEA intercepted a cocaine-filled package intended for Perez-Yanez and charged him with conspiracy, possession with intent to distribute, and illegal reentry.
Perez-Yanez moved to suppress physical evidence and statements, which the district court denied.
He pled guilty to Counts One and Three under an unconditional plea agreement, with the government dismissing Count Two.
Perez-Yanez argues the plea was involuntary due to coercion and that suppression should have been granted because of privacy expectations and pre-Miranda questioning.
The district court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy; Perez-Yanez waived appellate rights in his written plea, and the government consented to the waiver.
The court held the plea voluntary, and Perez-Yanez timely appealed, challenging only the pre-plea suppression issue and related coercion theories.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the guilty plea voluntary and thus a waiver of suppression issues?	Perez-Yanez contends the district court coerced him into pleading.	The plea was voluntary and fully explained in Rule 11 colloquy; waiver of appeal is valid.	Plea was voluntary; waiver valid.
Does an unconditional plea waive pre-plea suppression challenges?	Asserts he preserved suppression issues despite the unconditional plea.	Unconditional plea waives pre-plea suppression challenges unless preserved under Rule 11(a)(2).	Waived; nothing preserved under Rule 11(a)(2).
Did pre-Miranda questioning taint subsequent statements, warranting suppression?	Pre-Miranda questions violated rights and tainted later statements.	Waived by plea; the Rule 11 colloquy supports voluntariness; no suppression reversal.	waived; no suppression reversal.
Did the district court improperly participate in plea negotiations?	Court’s in-chambers remarks violated Rule 11(c) and compromised voluntariness.	Any in-chambers discussion did not improperly influence the plea; court complied with procedure.	No reversible improper participation.

United States v. Ferguson, 669 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2012) (holding that a defendant may lose pre-plea suppression rights on unconditional plea)
United States v. Kirksey, 118 F.3d 1113 (6th Cir. 1997) (standard for voluntariness in plea context when reviewing coercion claims)
United States v. Herrera, 265 F.3d 349 (6th Cir. 2001) (requirement to preserve rights under Rule 11 for appeal from suppression rulings)
United States v. Barrett, 982 F.2d 193 (6th Cir. 1992) (improper district court participation in plea negotiations when it directly discussed pleas)
United States v. Rankin, 94 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 1996) (per curiam on court involvement in plea contexts)
United States v. Bazazpour, 690 F.3d 796 (6th Cir. 2012) (plain error review standards for post-plea challenges)
Baker v. United States, 781 F.2d 85 (6th Cir. 1986) (sworn statements at Rule 11 colloquy bind defendant if procedure is scrupulously followed)
Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (U.S. 1997) (plain error standard for evaluating undisputed rights violations)
United States v. Serrano-Lara, 698 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. 2012) (illustrative about plea negotiation discussions)
United States v. Casallas, 59 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 1995) (court comments on sentencing and pleas)