United States v. Manuel Minjarez, 667 F. App'x 144

Manuel Minjarez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute ≥500 grams of methamphetamine and to using a communications facility to commit a drug crime; sentenced to 151 months imprisonment and six years supervised release (within the Guidelines).
At issue on appeal were pretrial rulings on admissibility of certain evidence and the district court’s denial of Minjarez’s motion to transfer venue under Fed. R. Crim. P. 21(b).
Minjarez did not enter a written, conditional plea reserving specified appeals under Rule 11(a)(2); his plea was voluntary and unconditional.
Minjarez argued his plea nevertheless preserved appellate review of pretrial rulings because the rearraignment acknowledged he retained appellate rights.
He also challenged the substantive reasonableness of his within-Guidelines sentence, asking for a downward variance based on his upbringing, his father’s death, and chronic drug addiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pretrial evidentiary and venue rulings survive Minjarez’s unconditional guilty plea	Minjarez contends his plea preserved those appeals because the record shows the court and parties acknowledged he retained appellate rights	Government argues an unconditional guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional pretrial errors and Minjarez did not follow Rule 11(a)(2) for a conditional plea	Waived: unconditional guilty plea bars appeal of pretrial rulings; appellate review not permitted
Whether the rearraignment satisfied the spirit of Rule 11(a)(2) so Minjarez preserved appeals despite lack of formal reservation	Minjarez asserts the court’s statements at rearraignment show intent to reserve appellate rights beyond ordinary post-plea rights	Government notes no written conditional plea, no explicit reservation of specific issues, and no court approval as required by Rule 11(a)(2)	Not satisfied: record lacks manifestation of intent to preserve those specific appeals; formal Rule 11 requirements control
Whether the 151-month within-Guidelines sentence was substantively unreasonable	Minjarez urges a downward variance given his troubled childhood, his father’s death, and drug addiction	Government contends the district court properly considered §3553(a) factors and imposed a Guidelines sentence; presumption of reasonableness applies	Affirmed: within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively reasonable; Minjarez did not rebut the presumption

United States v. Daughenbaugh, 549 F.3d 1010 (5th Cir. 2008) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects)
United States v. Sealed Appellant, 526 F.3d 241 (5th Cir. 2008) (unconditional plea waives pretrial rulings)
United States v. Sevick, 234 F.3d 248 (5th Cir. 2000) (same principle on plea waiver)
United States v. Wise, 179 F.3d 184 (5th Cir. 1999) (requirements for conditional guilty plea under Rule 11(a)(2))
United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2007) (excusing technical Rule 11 variances only where record clearly shows intent to preserve appeals)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion review for substantive reasonableness)
United States v. Washington, 480 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2009) (grounds for rebutting presumption of reasonableness)
United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2008) (deference to sentencing judge’s factual findings and §3553(a) balancing)