Does the impeachment-use waiver doctrine established by the Court in United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, permit the government to introduce in its case in chief at trial a plea agreement signed by the defendant, thereby effectively presenting the jury with a written guilty plea entered without a Rule 11 plea colloquy, in the same way that the government may otherwise introduce a defendant's confession?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioner, after acting in an undercover role for the government in a Medicare fraud investigation, signed an agreement to plead guilty to a criminal information. As part of that pre-charging agreement, petitioner waived the plea protections of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) and Fed. R. Evid. 410. When petitioner failed to enter a guilty plea after the government filed the information, the government indicted him on new charges and offered, in its case in chief at trial, the plea agreement’s factual basis statement that admitted all elements of the charges. Affirming petitioner’s convictions, the Eleventh Circuit held that under United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995) (allowing impeachment use of plea-negotiation admissions where defendant waived inadmissibility rules), the government could introduce the plea agreement document as substantive evidence at trial. The question presented is: Does the impeachment-use waiver doctrine established by the Court in United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, for plea-related discussions permit the government to introduce in its case in chief at trial a plea agreement signed by the defendant, thereby effectively presenting the jury with a written guilty plea entered without a Rule 11 plea colloquy, in the same way that the government may otherwise introduce a defendant’s confession? 1 INTERESTED PARTIES There are no parties interested in the proceeding other than those named in the caption of the case. il