USCA11 Case: 24-11997 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2025 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals Hour the Eleventh Circuit

No. 24-11997 Non-Argument Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

JAMAL LIVINGSTON ALEXANDER, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cr-20015-BB-1

Before JORDAN, LUCK, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Jamal Alexander was convicted of possessing child pornog- raphy after pleading guilty and sentenced to forty-two months in prison. He appeals the voluntariness of his guilty plea. Because we USCA11 Case: 24-11997 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2025 Page: 2of4

2 Opinion of the Court 24-11997

agree that Alexander’s plea was not knowing and voluntary, we re-

verse his conviction and sentence and remand to the district court.

The Miami Beach Police Department executed a search war- rant for child pornography at Alexander’s house. Based on evi- dence found during the search, a federal grand jury returned an in- dictment charging Alexander with possessing child pornography.

Alexander moved to suppress the evidence from the search, arguing that the police didn’t have probable cause for the warrant, but the district court denied the motion. Alexander then agreed to plead guilty. He signed a plea agreement with the government but the agreement said nothing about his right to appeal. At the change-of-plea hearing, the district court explained some of the consequences of the agreement without mentioning the possibility of an appeal. For his part, Alexander told the district court that, by signing the plea agreement, he was not waiving his right to appeal

the denied suppression motion.

At sentencing, Alexander again explained that he planned to appeal the district court’s denial of the suppression motion. The district court acknowledged that statement without clarifying that the plea agreement’s terms had foreclosed any appeal on the sup-

pression issue.

We review for plain error when a defendant does not object to the voluntariness of his guilty plea. See United States v. Monroe, 353 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir. 2003). To succeed on plain error review, the defendant must show four things: (1) that an error oc-

curred; (2) that the error was plain; (3) that the error affected his USCA11 Case: 24-11997 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2025 Page: 3of4

24-11997 Opinion of the Court 3

substantial rights; and (4) that the error “seriously affects the fair- ness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (quotation omitted). A defendant may enter a conditional plea— one that allows for review of a pretrial motion—only “with the

consent of the court and the government.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2).

Here, the parties agree that the terms of the plea didn’t allow Alexander to appeal the denial of his suppression motion, so there wasn't consent under rule 11(a)(2). As a result, Alexander argues that his plea was invalid because he didn’t enter it with full knowledge of its consequences. The government concedes that Alexander is right.

After reviewing the record, the government’s concession is well taken. Alexander’s guilty plea was plainly not voluntary be- cause he did not know and voluntarily accept that it was uncondi- tional. See United States v. Pierre, 120 F.3d 1153, 1156 (11th Cir. 1997) (concluding as a matter of law that a defendant's guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary when he entered it based on a reason- able but mistaken belief that he had preserved a pretrial issue for

appeal). Thus, we reverse his conviction and sentence and remand

for further proceedings.

’ Alexander also argues that the district court erred in denying his suppression motion. But because we're reversing his conviction and sentence based on the voluntariness of his guilty plea, we need not reach this alternative ground for reversing. USCA11 Case: 24-11997 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 12/19/2025 Page: 4of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 24-11997

REVERSED AND REMANDED.