should have been suppressed); United States v. Lopez-Soto, 205 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir.2000 poena Estrada-Nava and Colin also appeal the district court’s denial of their ex parte application for issuance of an out-of-district subpoena duces tecum pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). In their respective plea agreements, Estrada-Nava and Colin reserved only their right to seek review of the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. They did not reserve the right to appeal “any other determination or issue,” including the district court’s denial of their ex parte application for a subpoena duces tecum. As a result, Estrada-Nava and Colin have waived this issue on appeal, and we decline to rule on it. See United States v. Chon, 210 F.3d 990, 995 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Alexander, 761 F.2d 1294,
holding that conditional guilty pleas are valid when entered into in accordance with certain standards holding appeal waiver in conditional guilty plea agreement precluded defendant from asserting new argument on appeal in support of suppression motion holding that issues not raised before a district court are waived on appeal holding that appellants waived all issues not expressly reserved for appeal in their conditional guilty pleas holding that issues were not waived on subsequent appeal when initial appeal was dismissed