United States v. Bulaman, 122618 FED3, 17-3233
| Opinion Judge | McKEE, Circuit Judge. |
| Party Name | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. SEZAYIR BULAMAN, Appellant |
| Judge Panel | Before: McKEE, VANAKSIE, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges |
| Case Date | December 26, 2018 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 12, 2018
On Appeal from United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D. C. Criminal No. 1-12-CR-00794-001) District Judge: Honorable Robert B. Kugler
Before: McKEE, VANAKSIE, and RESTREPO, Circuit Judges
OPINION
McKEE, Circuit Judge.
Sezayir Bulaman appeals his conviction after pleading guilty to possessing five or more kilograms of cocaine in violation of provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and related offenses. He argues that his conviction was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a Speedy Trial as incorporated in the Speedy Trial Act and that the District Court erred in denying the motion in limine that he filed in an attempt to prevent a confidential informant from translating audio recordings that the Government sought to admit into evidence at trial. He also claims that the court erred in accepting the Government's position that he should only receive a one-point reduction in his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) because he waited until the eve of trial to enter his plea. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
Bulaman correctly notes that his plea agreement did not contain an explicit waiver of appellate rights. However, he incorrectly concludes that the arguments which he now attempts to raise therefore survived his guilty plea. Even absent an express waiver of appellate rights, it is a "general rule that a guilty plea, intelligently and voluntarily made, bars the later assertion of constitutional challenges to the pretrial proceedings."2 One exception to that general principle, which does not apply here and which Bulaman does not attempt to claim, is that a plea does not waive jurisdictional defects. Bulaman cites Class v. United States,
3 to argue that constitutional defects (such as the one he relies on) are not extinguished by a guilty plea unless the plea agreement explicitly provides for such a waiver.
In his Reply Brief, Bulaman relies upon Class to argue that that his constitutional challenge survives his guilty plea. However, there, the Supreme Court merely held that a guilty plea does not bar a subsequent challenge to the constitutionality of the statute a defendant was convicted of violating. The Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial