Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Patrick

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division

February 24, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
WAYLON PATRICK, Defendant.

RULE 11(c)(1)(C) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEAS OF GUILTY

LEONARD T. STRAND, Magistrate Judge.

On February 24, 2014, 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 and Eleven of the Second Superseding 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 and Eleven of the Second Superseding 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 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 his 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 Second Superseding Indictment, and he had fully discussed these charges with his 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 and Eleven of the Second Superseding 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 Count One, the defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $10, 000, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is life; and the maximum period of supervised release is life.

With respect to Count Eleven, the defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $10, 000, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is 80 years; and the maximum period of supervised release is life.

Count Twelve will be dismissed at sentencing.

The court advised the defendant that he 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 his 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 his 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 he was pleading guilty pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, he would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 156 months (13 years). The sentence imposed in this case may be concurrent, consecutive or partially concurrent and partially consecutive to any undischarged term of imprisonment in: State of Iowa v. Waylon Patrick , in the Webster County, Iowa District Court case number FECR344406. And the parties stipulated and agreed this issue (regarding concurrent/consecutive nature of this case with any undischarged term of imprisonment with state of Iowa) may be litigated. The court explained to the defendant that if the district judge rejected the plea agreement and the defendant did not withdraw his guilty plea, then the court could dispose of the case less favorably toward him 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 $200.00 which he must pay. He also was advised of the collateral consequences of a plea of guilty. The defendant acknowl-edged that he 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, he could not commit another federal, state, or local crime while on supervised release, and he could not possess illegal controlled substances while on supervised release. The defendant was advised that if he were found to have violated a condition of supervised release, then his term of supervised release could be revoked and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.