assessment of guilt, it follows that the failure of a prosecutor to disclose exculpatory information to an individual waiving his right to trial is not a constitutional violation.” Id. at 361-62. Based on this interpretation, the court found that the relief sought by the defendant would require adoption of a new rule under a Teague analysis. Id. at 364. In Orman, this court reiterated its position that a guilty plea waives the right to claim a Brady violation. 228 F.3d at 617, 620-21; cf. United States v. Santa Cruz, 297 Fed.Appx. 300, 301 (5th Cir.2008) (applying Matthew and Orman to conclude that the defendant’s guilty plea foreclosed his argument that his plea was involuntary due to an alleged Brady violation); United States v. Alvarez-Ocanegra, 180 Fed.Appx. 535, 535 (5th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). We noted that “[b]e- cause the Supreme Court
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 right to challenge factual basis is waived by guilty plea holding statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and can be waived by a voluntary plea of guilty holding that the defendants brady claim was waived by a guilty plea but citing lampazianie instead of matthew holding that a brady violation is waived by guilty plea