RULE 11(c)(1)(C) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEAS OF GUILTY
LEONARD T. STRAND, Magistrate Judge.
On May 23, 2013, the above-named defendant, by consent, appeared before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered pleas of guilty to Counts One, Two, Three, and Four of the Indictment. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, the court determined that the guilty pleas were knowledgeable and voluntary, and the offenses charged were supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offenses charged in Counts One, Two, Three and Four of the Indictment. The court therefore RECOMMENDS that the pleas 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 she answered any questions falsely, she could be prosecuted for perjury or for making a false statement. She also was advised that in any such prosecution, the Government could use against her any statements she 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 her full name, her age, and the extent of her schooling. The court inquired into her 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 her ability to make knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas of guilty to the charges.
The defendant acknowledged that she had received a copy of the Indictment, and she had fully discussed these charges with her attorney.
The court summarized the charges against the defendant, and listed the elements of the crimes. The court determined that the defendant understood each and every element of the charges, ascertained that the defendant's counsel had explained each and every element of the charges fully to the defendant, and the defendant's counsel confirmed that the defendant understood each and every element of the charges.
The court then elicited a full and complete factual basis for all elements of the crimes charged in Counts One, Two, Three and Four of the Indictment.
The court advised the defendant of the consequences of his pleas, including, for each Count, the maximum fine and the maximum term of imprisonment.
With respect to Counts One, Two, Three, and Four, the defendant was advised that as to each count, that the maximum fine is $250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is five years; and the maximum period of supervised release is one year.
The court advised the defendant that she was pleading guilty under a plea agreement with the Government that provided for the imposition of a specific, agreed sentence at the time of the sentencing hearing. After confirming that a copy of the written plea agreement was in front of the defendant and her attorney, the court determined that the defendant understood the terms of the plea agreement. The court explained to the defendant that at the sentencing hearing, the district judge would consider whether or not to accept the plea agreement and impose the agreed sentence. If the district judge decided to accept the plea agreement and impose the agreed sentence, then the defendant would receive the agreed sentence. If the district judge decided to reject the plea agreement and impose a different sentence, then the defendant would have an opportunity to withdraw her pleas of guilty and plead not guilty. The court further advised the defendant that pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, which provided that she was pleading guilty pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, she would be sentenced to a term of probation. The court explained to the defendant that if the district judge rejected the plea agreement and the defendant did not withdraw her guilty plea, then the court could dispose of the case less favorably toward her than the plea agreement contemplated, including imposing a longer sentence than the one to which the parties had agreed in the plea agreement.
The defendant also was advised that the court was obligated to impose a special assessment of $100.00 on each count, for a total of $400.00 which she must pay. She also was advised of the collateral consequences of a plea of guilty. The defendant acknowledged that she understood all of the above consequences.
The court then explained supervised release to the defendant, and advised the defendant that a term of supervised release would be imposed in addition to the sentence of imprisonment. The defendant was advised that among other conditions of supervised release, she could not commit another federal, state, or local crime while on supervised release, and she could not possess illegal controlled substances while on supervised release. The defendant was advised that if she were found to have violated a condition of supervised release, then her 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 defendant was advised that parole has been abolished.
Defendant also acknowledges that her plea agreement contains an appeal waiver, and she agrees to waive her appeal ...