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. Pudenz

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

March 10, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ADAM J. J. PUDENZ, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

LEONARD T. STRAND, Magistrate Judge.

On March 10, 2015, 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 Two of the Information. 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. 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 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 Information, and he had fully discussed these charges with his attorney.

The court determined that the Defendant was pleading guilty under a plea agreement with the Government. 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 then summarized the plea agreement, and made certain the Defendant understood its terms.

The court explained to the Defendant that if he pleaded guilty, a presentence report would be prepared and a district judge would consider whether or not to accept the plea agreement. If the district judge decided to reject the plea agreement, then the Defendant would have an opportunity to withdraw his pleas of guilty and change them to not guilty.

The Defendant was advised also that after his pleas were accepted, he would have no right to withdraw the pleas at a later date, even if the sentence imposed was different from what the Defendant or his counsel anticipated.

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 crimes, ascertained that his counsel had explained each and every element of the crimes fully to him, and the Defendant's counsel confirmed that the Defendant understood each and every element of the crimes charged.

The court then elicited a full and complete factual basis for all elements of the crimes charged in each Count of the Information to which the Defendant was pleading guilty.

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 and Two, the Defendant was advised that as to each count the maximum fine is $250, 000 (except as provided below); the maximum term of imprisonment is five years; and the maximum period of supervised release is three years.

The Defendant was further advised that he may be subject to the alternative fine provisions of 18 U.S.C. ยง 3571. Under this section, the maximum fine that may be imposed on the Defendant for Count Two is the greatest of the following amounts: (1) twice the gross gain to the Defendant resulting from the offense; (2) twice the gross loss resulting from the offense; (3) $250, 000; or (4) the amount specified in the section defining the offense.

The Defendant also was advised that the court is obligated to impose a special assessment of $100.00 on each Count, for a total of $200.00, which the Defendant must pay. The Defendant also was advised of the collateral consequences of a plea of guilty. The ...


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.