plea. In United States v. Beck, 250 F.3d 1163, 1165 (8th Cir.2001), we held that a defendant, by entering a guilty plea that was not conditional, waived his right to appeal the sufficiency of the factual basis for one element of the offense of conviction, but in United States v. Marks, 38 F.3d 1009, 1012-13 (8th Cir.1994), we reviewed the adequacy of a factual basis under Rule 11 despite an unconditional guilty plea. Other circuits appear to be divided on the question. Compare, e.g., United States v. Lacey, 569 F.3d 319, 323 (7th Cir.2009) (reviewing adequacy of factual basis), United States v. Baymon, 312 F.3d 725, 727-28 (5th Cir.2002) (same), and United States v. McKelvey, 203 F.3d 66, 69-70 (1st Cir.2000) (same), with United States v. Johnson, 89 F.3d 778, 784 (11 th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>), United States v. Willis, 992 F.2d 489, 490
holding that factual basis had to be established at time of guilty plea not later in presentence investigation holding that based on the facts presented by the state and the defendants stipulation to the existence of a factual basis for his plea the court properly determined a factual basis for the plea existed holding that a brady violation is waived by guilty plea holding that although defendant is not entitled to appeal from his guilty plea as a matter of right his arguments challenging the factual basis for his guilty plea are reviewable pursuant to a petition for writ of certiorari holding that right to challenge factual basis is waived by guilty plea