Case: 15-11679 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-11679
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:12-cr-00005-RS-EMT-11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TROY ANTHONY COLEMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(June 28, 2016)
Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 15-11679 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Troy Anthony Coleman appeals his convictions and total 210-month
sentence.1 Coleman pleaded guilty -- pursuant to a written plea agreement -- to
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to
distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
drug-trafficking crime, 2 and being a felon in possession of a firearm. No reversible
error has been shown; we affirm.
On appeal, Coleman first argues that the prosecution committed
prosecutorial misconduct by allowing a federal agent to give perjured testimony
during the grand jury proceedings. Coleman also contends that the district court
erred by denying his motion to suppress certain evidence. The government
responds that Coleman waived each of these arguments when he pleaded guilty.
A defendant waives all non-jurisdictional challenges to his conviction when
he enters a knowing and voluntary unconditional guilty plea. United States v.
Pierre, 120 F.3d 1153, 1155 (11th Cir. 1997). “A defendant who wishes to
preserve appellate review of a non-jurisdictional defect while at the same time
1
In a related appeal currently pending before this Court (Case No. 15-11679), Coleman
challenges the district court’s resentencing order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
2
In his appellate brief, Coleman mentions in passing that the grand jury never found that he used
a gun in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense. Because Coleman presents no supporting
argument or authority on this issue, his claim is abandoned. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681-82 (11th Cir. 2014).
2
Case: 15-11679 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 3 of 5
pleading guilty can do so only by entering a ‘conditional plea’ in accordance with
Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2).” Id.
First, we reject Coleman’s contention that he entered a conditional plea.
Although Coleman’s plea agreement provides that “[t]he parties reserve the right to
appeal any sentence imposed,” nothing in the plea agreement preserved Coleman’s
right to challenge -- no matter the ground -- his underlying convictions. See Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2) (a conditional plea must specify the adverse ruling preserved
for appeal). And Coleman has failed to demonstrate that either the government or
the district court consented to a conditional guilty plea. See id.; United States v.
Betancourth, 554 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir. 2009) (defendant’s guilty plea
deemed unconditional in part because the government had not consented to a
conditional plea).
The record also evidences that Coleman’s guilty plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered. 3 At the plea colloquy, the district court confirmed that
Coleman’s plea was not coerced and that Coleman understood both the charges
against him and the consequences of his plea. In pertinent part, Coleman said that
he understood that, by entering a guilty plea, he would “give up any defense that
[he] might have to the charges against [him].” On this record, the district court
3
Because Coleman raised no challenge the voluntariness of his plea in the district court, we
review this issue only for plain error. See United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1018-19
(11th Cir. 2005). Under plain error review, a defendant must demonstrate that (1) the district
court erred, (2) the error was plain, and (3) the error affected his substantial rights. Id. at 1019.
3
Case: 15-11679 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 4 of 5
committed no plain error in accepting Coleman’s plea as knowing and voluntary.
See United States v. Frye, 402 F.3d 1123, 1127 (11th Cir. 2005). Moreover,
nothing in Rule 11 required the district court to inform Coleman expressly that, by
entering an unconditional guilty plea, he waived his right to appeal all non-
jurisdictional defects. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1).
By entering a knowing and voluntary unconditional guilty plea, Coleman
waived his right to challenge the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress
evidence. See United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973).
Coleman also waived his right to raise on appeal his argument about prosecutorial
misconduct during the grand jury proceedings. See Tollett v. Henderson, 93 S. Ct.
1602, 1607-08 (1973) (a defendant who enters a knowing and voluntary guilty plea
is unentitled to federal collateral relief based on allegations that the grand jury was
unconstitutionally selected); United States v. Boniface, 631 F.2d 1228, 1229 (5th
Cir. 1980) (defendant’s guilty plea barred non-jurisdictional claim that the
indictment was “clandestinely constructed by the United States Attorney after the
grand jury voted on it” and “signed by the Foreman separate and apart from the
grand jury”); see also United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir. 1998)
(persuasive authority) (defendant waived claims of prosecutorial misconduct by
pleading guilty).
4
Case: 15-11679 Date Filed: 06/28/2016 Page: 5 of 5
We also decline to consider Coleman’s claims of ineffective assistance of
trial counsel (many of which are raised for the first time on direct appeal), because
the record is not yet sufficiently developed on these issues. See United States v.
Bender, 290 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002) (in general, we will not “consider
claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised on direct appeal where the district
court did not entertain the claim or develop a factual record.”). Instead, Coleman’s
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are more properly raised in a motion filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.4 See United States v. Patterson, 595 F.3d 1324,
1328-29 (11th Cir. 2010) (a section 2255 motion is the preferred method for
raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel). 5
AFFIRMED.
4
We note that Coleman has already filed an initial section 2255 motion. Because the district
court considered and granted Coleman’s section 2255 motion on only a single issue (whether
Coleman’s trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by filing to file a notice of appeal), and
dismissed without prejudice Coleman’s other ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, Coleman
seems not to be barred from filing another section 2255 motion. See McIver v. United States,
307 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir. 2002) (“an order granting a § 2255 petition, and reimposing
sentence, resets to zero the counter of collateral attacks pursued.”).
5
The Government’s Unopposed Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal is Denied.
5