United States v. Michael W. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550 (5th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Michael W. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550 (5th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“mccoy also raises several questions concerning the district court's refusal to suppress certain evidence. these issues, however, are clearly non-jurisdictional and were effectively waived by mccoy's guilty plea.”
56 citation events (40 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Joseph Leroy Thomas (ca11, 2018-08-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United States v. Joseph Leroy Thomas
11th Cir. · 2018 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
mccoy also raises several questions concerning the district court's refusal to suppress certain evidence. these issues, however, are clearly non-jurisdictional and were effectively waived by mccoy's guilty plea.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Luis Daniel Fuentes
11th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973); see Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down before the close of business on September 30, 1981) USCA11 Case: 24-11906 Document: 40-1 Date Filed: 09/11/2025 Page: 3 of 11 24-11906 Opinion of the Court 3 addition to these videos, law enforcement discovered 17 videos and over 5,000 images of child sex abuse material.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Rechard Bartley
11th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Eric Windham
11th Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973). 3 To preserve a non-juris- dictional challenge, the defendant must enter a conditional guilty plea that reserves the right to have an appellate court review an ad- verse determination of a specified pre-trial motion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Shalonda Faison
11th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973). 1 If a defendant “wishes to preserve appellate review of a non-jurisdictional defect while at the same time pleading guilty,” they “can do so only by entering a ‘conditional [guilty] plea’ in ac- cordance with Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Daniel Rodriguez v. United States
11th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
Id. at 1322 ; United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973). 2 The district court erred in denying Rodriguez’s motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Carballa v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Hillsborough)
M.D. Fla. · 2024 · confidence medium
United States v. Charles, 757 F.3d 1222 , 1227 n.4 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973)1.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Andres Camilo Ruiz
11th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
United States v. Charles, 757 F.3d 1222 , 1227 n.4 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Mark Rory Whitehead
11th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
See United States v. Charles, 757 F.3d 1222 , 1227 n.4 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Marwan Isa Belion
11th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Bustamante
11th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
United States v. Ternus, 598 F.3d 1251, 1254 (11th Cir. 2010); United States v. Charles, 757 F.3d 1222 , 1227 n.4 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jacqueline Bustamante
11th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
United States v. Ternus, 598 F.3d 1251, 1254 (11th Cir. 2010); United States v. Charles, 757 F.3d 1222 , 1227 n.4 (11th Cir. 2014); United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973). 2
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert Lewis Morgan
11th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam). 1 Thus, the challenge is waived if not preserved in a conditional plea.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Rulexy Rodriguez-Vazquez (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973); see also United States v. Wai-Keung, 115 F.3d 874, 877 (11th Cir.1997) (declining to discuss a suppression issue that was beyond the challenges that the conditional guilty plea permitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Michael A. Membrides (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973) (per curiam). 1 A defendant can preserve appellate review of a non jurisdictional defect while at the same time pleading guilty by entering a “conditional plea” pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2), “reserving in writing the right to have an appellate court review an adverse determination of a specified pretrial motion.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2); see also Pierre, 120 F.3d at 1155 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Robert Lee Lane
11th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973) (per curiam). 2 Lane entered an unconditional guilty plea. 3 At his plea hearing, Lane failed to preserve in writing his right to appeal the district judge’s denial of his motion to suppress.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Charles A. Armstrong
11th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
See United States v. Pierre, 120 F.3d 1153, 1155 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973). 1 A defendant who pleads guilty, however, may reserve certain issues for appellate review by entering a conditional plea in accordance with Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Stanley Wintfield Rolle
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
We also reject Rolle’s arguments on the following issues, both of which are non-jurisdictional and were thus waived by his guilty plea: (1) whether the district erred by not suppressing evidence due to a lack of probable cause to stop Rolle’s ship, see United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973) (suppression is not a jurisdictional issue); and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to show a violation of § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), see United States v. Ternus, 598 F.3d 1251, 1254 (11th Cir.2010) (sufficiency of the evidence is not a jurisdictional issue).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jerome Hayes
11th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Walter James Hickman
11th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973). 1 “A defendant who wishes to preserve appellate review of a non-jurisdictional defect while at the same time pleading guilty can do so only by entering a ‘conditional plea’ in accordance with Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Chester Byrd
11th Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jimmy Lee White
11th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Michael Carr
5th Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Rodriguez-DeMaya at 1128 ; Pressley at 711 ; Morrow at 146 ; United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973). 9 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Boone
Me. · 1982 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 5th Cir., 477 F.2d 550, 551 (1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Winfield L. Roberts, A/K/A Win
D.C. Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973); United States v. Arredondo, 447 F.2d 976 , 977 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1026 , 92 S.Ct. 683 , 30 L.Ed.2d 676 (1972). 30 .
cited Cited "see" United States v. Keyon Lewis
11th Cir. · 2026 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Troy Anthony Coleman
11th Cir. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Frederick Cadet
11th Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973) (per curiam). 2 A defendant who wishes to preserve appellate review of a non-jurisdictional defect while at the same time pleading guilty can do so only by entering a “conditional plea” in accordance with Fed.R.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Lamar Odom
11th Cir. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973). 1 Odom waived his right to challenge the District Court’s denial of his motion to suppress through the entry of an unconditional guilty plea.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Jorge Naun Aguilar
11th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973); United States v. Sepe, 474 F.2d 784, 787-88 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Marcelino Lopez
11th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973); United States v. Sepe, 474 F.2d 784, 787-88 (5th Cir.1973).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Kelvin Noe Morales Romero
11th Cir. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir.1973); United States v. Sepe, 474 F.2d 784, 787-88 (5th Cir.1973).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Jamar Maurice James
11th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence medium
United States v. Charles, 757 F.3d 1222 , 1227 n.4 (11th Cir. 2014); see also United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam) (“[The defendant] raises several questions concerning the district court’s refusal to sup- press certain evidence.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Gabriel Esquivel
11th Cir. · 2020 · signal: see also · confidence medium
P. 11; see United States v. Betancourth, 554 F.3d 1329, 1332 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A defendant who enters an unconditional plea of guilty waives all nonjurisdictional challenges to the conviction”); see also United States v. McCoy, 477 F.2d 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1973) (holding that a district court's refusal to suppress evidence is non-jurisdictional and is waived by a guilty plea).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Michael W. McCOY, Defendant-Appellant
72-3097.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Apr 25, 1973.
477 F.2d 550
Tabor R. Novak, Jr., Montgomery, Ala. (court appointed), for defendant-appellant., Ira DeMent, U. S. Atty., David B. Byrne, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.
Wisdom, Ainsworth, Clark.
Cited by 43 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM;

Michael W. McCoy appeals from the district court’s decision denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm.

On February 23, 1972, McCoy was indicted by a federal grand jury on a charge of false registration in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. After a hearing, the district court denied McCoy’s motion to suppress certain evidence. On April 21, McCoy entered a plea of not guilty. He then filed several motions attacking the district court’s decision[*551] and the credibility of certain witnesses who testified at the suppression hearing. The court later denied each of these motions. On June 19, McCoy withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the first count in the indictment. After the court accepted the plea, the government dismissed the remaining charges. The court then directed that McCoy be committed under 18 U.S.C. § 5010(e) for a period of 60 days for study and observation.

On August 15, McCoy filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court denied the motion after a hearing and on August 30 sentenced McCoy to an indeterminate sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 5010(b). McCoy appealed.

There is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea before imposition of sentence, Kirshberger v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F.2d 782, or after imposition of sentence, United States v. McDaniel, 5 Cir. 1970, 425 F.2d 813. The decision to grant such a motion is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Rimanich v. United States, 5 Cir. 1966, 357 F.2d 537.

McCoy argues that his guilty plea was entered with reluctance, that he lacked confidence in his attorney, that perjured testimony was offered against him, and that the facts relevant to his plea are disputed. In response, the government asserts that the district court’s order committing McCoy under 18 U.S.C. § 5010(e) for a period of study and observation constitutes an imposition of sentence and that under rule 32(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, withdrawal of a guilty plea should be allowed only to correct a manifest injustice.

We need not decide whether commitment under section 5010(e) constitutes imposition of sentence within the meaning of Rule 32(d) since we find that, even assuming the motion was made before sentencing, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. The record shows that before accepting McCoy’s guilty plea the trial court carefully inquired into the factual basis for the plea and concluded that it was voluntarily and knowingly made. McCoy was represented by court-appointed counsel who also advised him of his rights. When McCoy filed the motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the court held another hearing to inquire into the basis for the motion and to permit him to advance any argument in support of his position. The court concluded that the motion should be denied. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in so deciding.

McCoy also raises several questions concerning the district court’s refusal to suppress certain evidence. These issues, however, are clearly non-jurisdictional and were effectively waived by McCoy’s guilty plea. Ortega-Velasquez v. United States, 5 Cir. 1972, 465 F.2d 419.

The decision of the district court must therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.