United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
WILLIAMS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
December 20, 2016, the above-named defendant, Susana Martinez
Arreola, by consent (Doc. 92), appeared before the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered a plea of
guilty to Count 2 of the Superseding Indictment (Doc. 49).
After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath
concerning each of the subjects 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 each of the essential
elements of the offense. The court therefore RECOMMENDS that
the plea of guilty be accepted and the defendant be adjudged
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.
court 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 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 her ability to
make knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas of guilty to
defendant acknowledged that she had received a copy of the
Superseding Indictment, and she had fully discussed these
charges with her attorney.
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 her attorney, the court determined that the
defendant understood the terms of the plea agreement. The
court summarized the plea agreement, and made certain the
defendant understood its terms.
court explained to the defendant that because the plea
agreement provided for  dismissal of charges if she 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 her pleas of guilty and change them to not guilty.
defendant was advised also that after her plea was accepted,
she would have no right to withdraw the plea at a later date,
even if the sentence imposed was different from what the
defendant or her counsel anticipated.
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, and
the defendant's counsel confirmed that the defendant
understood each and every element of the crime charged.
court elicited a full and complete factual basis for all
elements of the crimes charged in each Count of the
Superseding Indictment to which the defendant was pleading
court advised the defendant of the consequences of her plea,
including the maximum fine, the maximum term of imprisonment,
and the possibility that restitution could be ordered.
respect to Count 2, the defendant was advised that the
maximum fine is the greater of either $500, 000 or twice the
amount of funds involved in the financial transaction,
whichever is greater; the maximum term of imprisonment is 20
years; the maximum period of supervised release is 3 years.
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 she understood all of the above consequences.
court explained supervised release to the defendant, and
advised her 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 she were found to have violated a
condition of supervised release, then her term of supervised
release could be revoked and she could be required to serve