CURIAM. Myron Jefferson entered a guilty plea to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) after the district court denied his motion to suppress evidence. Jefferson now seeks to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress, contending that his was a conditional guilty plea in accordance with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2). The government counters that Jefferson waived his right to appellate review by failing to comply with the dictates of the rule — preserving in writing the specific issue to be appealed. We agree with the government. This court strictly enforces the requirement that the conditional plea be in writing. United States v. Herrera, 265 F.3d 349, 351-52 (6th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Jefferson relies on the written “Minutes”
holding that when the courts oral statements in the plea colloquy conflict with the written agreement the courts oral statements control holding that a defendants guilty plea was unconditional where the guilty plea was not in writing and the government did not consent to it being conditional holding that a counsels oral statements at a plea hearing  that the plea being entered was conditional  did not satisfy the rule 11 writing requirement recognizing a presumption that a plea of guilty is final and binding if the plea was made during a properly conducted hearing pursuant to rule 11 of the federal rules of criminal procedure recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea