and voluntary because his decision to plead guilty was based on incomplete information due to the fact that the Government failed to provide him with the administrative summons, which he argues amounts to a Brady violation. We assume for argument’s sake that the Government failed to disclose the requested evidence as alleged. “[T]he Constitution does not require the Government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant.” United States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 633, 122 S.Ct. 2450, 153 L.Ed.2d 586 (2002). McLean’s guilty plea precludes him from claiming that the Government’s alleged failure to disclose the summons was a Brady violation, or from claiming that the use of the summons was unconstitutional. See Conroy, 567 F.3d at 179 (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Cothran, 302 F.3d
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 right to challenge factual basis is waived by guilty plea holding that ramirez waived right to appeal because no nexus between failure to disclose medical evidence that allegedly violated brady and appellants plea of guilty holding that a brady violation is waived by guilty plea