The opinion of the court was delivered by: Leonard T. Strand Magistrate Judge United States District Court
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY
On December 19, 2012, the above-named defendant, by consent, appeared before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule11, the court determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary, and the offense charged was supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense. The court therefore RECOMMENDS that the plea of guilty be accepted and the defendant be adjudged guilty.
At the commencement of the Rule 11 proceeding, the defendant was placed under oath and advised that if he answered any questions falsely, he could be prosecuted for perjury or for making a false statement. He also was advised that in any such prosecution, the Government could use against him any statements he made under oath.
The court then asked a number of questions to ensure the defendant's mental capacity to enter a plea. The defendant stated his full name, his age, and the extent of his schooling. The court inquired into the defendant's history of mental illness and addiction to narcotic drugs. The court further inquired into whether the defendant was under the influence of any drug, medication, or alcoholic beverage at the time of the plea hearing. From this inquiry, the court determined that the defendant was not suffering from any mental disability that would impair his ability to make knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas of guilty to the charges.
The defendant acknowledged that he had received a copy of the Indictment, and he had fully discussed these charges with his attorney.
The court determined that there was no plea agreement.
The defendant was advised also that after his plea was accepted, he would have no right to withdraw the plea at a later date, even if the sentence imposed was different from what the defendant or his counsel anticipated.
The court summarized the charge against the defendant, and listed the elements of the crime. The court determined that the defendant understood each and every element of the crime, ascertained that his counsel had explained each and every element of the crime fully to him, and the defendant's counsel confirmed that the defendant understood each and every element of the crime charged.
The court then elicited a full and complete factual basis for all elements of the crimes charged in each Count of the Indictment to which the defendant was pleading guilty.
The court advised the defendant of the consequences of his plea, including the maximum fine, and the maximum term of imprisonment.
With respect to Count One, the defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $250,000; the maximum term of imprisonment is two years; and the maximum period of supervised release is one year.
The defendant also was advised that the court is obligated to impose a special assessment of $100.00, which the defendant must pay. The defendant also was advised of the collateral consequences of a plea of guilty. The defendant acknowledged that he understood all of the above consequences.
The court explained supervised release to the defendant, and advised him that a term of supervised release would be imposed in addition to the sentence of imprisonment. The defendant was advised that there are conditions of supervised release, and that if he were found to have violated a condition of supervised release, then his term of supervised release could be revoked and he could be required to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release without credit for time previously served on supervised release.
The court also explained to the defendant that the district judge would determine the appropriate sentence for him at the sentencing hearing. The defendant confirmed that he understood the court would not determine the appropriate sentence until after the preparation of a presentence report, which the parties would have the opportunity to challenge. The defendant acknowledged that he understood the sentence imposed might be different from what his attorney had estimated. The defendant also was advised that ...