United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division
RULE 11(c)(1)(C) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY
LEONARD T. STRAND, Magistrate Judge.
On April 1, 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 a plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning the subject mentioned in Rule 11, the court determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary, and the offense charged was supported by an independent basis in fact containing the essential elements of the offense charged in Count One of the Indictment. 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 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 a voluntary plea of guilty to the charge.
The defendant acknowledged that she had received a copy of the Indictment, and she had fully discussed these charge with her attorney.
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 charge, ascertained that the defendant's counsel had explained each and every element of the charge fully to the defendant, and the defendant's counsel confirmed that the defendant understood each and every element of the charge.
The court then elicited a full and complete factual basis for all elements of the crime charged in Count One of the Indictment.
The court advised the defendant of the consequences of her 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 20 years; and the maximum period of supervised release is three years.
Counts Two and Three through Seven will be dismissed at sentencing.
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 plea 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 imprisonment of 120 months. 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 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 ...