United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division
December 21, 2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
SUSANA MARTINEZ ARREOLA, Defendant.
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
in prison all or part of the term of supervised release
without credit for time previously served on supervised
Court advised defendant that, because defendant is not a
United States citizen, it is likely defendant will be
deported from the United States after serving any prison
sentence imposed. The Court also advised defendant that this
conviction may affect defendant's ability to ever
lawfully reenter the United States.
court also explained to the defendant that the district judge
would determine the appropriate sentence for her at the
sentencing hearing. The defendant confirmed that she
understood the court would not determine the appropriate
sentence until after the preparation of a presentence report,
which the parties would have the opportunity to challenge.
The defendant acknowledged that she understood the sentence
imposed might be different from what her attorney had
estimated. Defendant also acknowledges that her plea
agreement contains an appeal waiver, and she agrees to waive
her appeal rights as set out in that waiver. The defendant
was advised that parole has been abolished.
defendant indicated she had conferred fully with her counsel
and she was fully satisfied with her counsel. The
defendant's attorney indicated that there is a factual
basis for the guilty plea.
defendant was advised fully of her right to plead not guilty,
or having already entered a not guilty plea to persist in
such plea, and to have a jury trial, including:
1. The right to assistance of counsel at every stage of the
pretrial and trial proceedings;
2. The right to a speedy, public trial;
3. The right to have her case tried by a jury selected from a
cross-section of the community;
4. That she would be presumed innocent at each stage of the
proceedings, and would be found not guilty unless the
Government could prove each and every element of the offense
beyond a reasonable doubt;
5. That the Government could call witnesses into court, but
the defendant's attorney would have the right to confront
and cross-examine these witnesses;
6. That the defendant would have the right to see and hear
all witnesses presented at trial;
7. That the defendant would have the right to subpoena
defense witnesses to testify at the trial, and if she could
not afford to pay the fees and costs of bringing these
witnesses to court, then the Government would be required to
pay those fees and costs;
8. That the defendant would have the privilege against self
incrimination; i.e., she could choose to testify at
trial, but she need not do so, and if she chose not to
testify, then the court would instruct the jury that the
defendant had a constitutional right not to testify;
9. That any verdict by the jury would have to be unanimous;
10. That she would have the right to appeal, and if she could
not afford an attorney for the appeal, then the Government
would pay the costs of an attorney to prepare the appeal.
defendant also was advised of the rights she would waive by
entering a plea of guilty. The defendant was told there would
be no trial, she would waive all the trial rights just
described, and she would be adjudged guilty without any
further proceedings except for sentencing.
defendant confirmed that her decision to plead guilty was
voluntary and was not the result of any promises, other than
plea agreement promises; no one had promised her what the
sentence would be; and her decision to plead guilty was not
the result of any threats, force, or anyone pressuring her to
defendant confirmed that she still wished to plead guilty,
and she pleaded guilty to Count 2 of the Superseding
court finds the following with respect to the defendant's
1. The guilty plea is voluntary, knowing, not the result of
force, threats or promises, except plea agreement promises,
and the defendant is fully competent.
2. The defendant is aware of the maximum punishment.
3. The defendant knows her jury rights.
4. The defendant has voluntarily waived her jury rights.
5. There is a factual basis for the plea.
6. The defendant is, in fact, guilty of the crime to which
she is pleading guilty.
defendant was advised that a written presentence
investigation report would be prepared to assist the court in
sentencing. The defendant was told that she and her counsel
would have an opportunity to read the presentence report
before the sentencing hearing and to object to the contents
of the report, and she and her counsel would be afforded the
opportunity to present evidence and be heard at the
to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(1), the court
made a finding that the Government has established the
requisite nexus between defendant's offense and the
property described in the Superseding Indictment's
forfeiture allegation, page 5; specifically, $37, 439.00.
defendant was advised that the failure to file written
objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days
of the date of its service would bar her from attacking this
court's Report and Recommendation, which recommends that
the assigned United States District Judge accept the
defendant's plea of guilty. Defendant was advised that
she may waive any right to file written objections to this
Report and Recommendation by filing 2 a written waiver form.
The “Waiver of Objections to Report and
Recommendation” form is available on the Court's
States v. Cortez-Hernandez, 2016 WL 7174114 (8th Cir.
2016) (per curiam), suggests that a defendant may have the
right to de novo review of a magistrate judge's
recommendation to accept a plea of guilty even if no
objection is filed. But see 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b). The district court judge
will undertake a de novo review of the Report and
Recommendation if a written request for such review is filed
within fourteen (14) days after this order is filed.
Defendant pleaded guilty to Count
2 of the Superseding Indictment. Under the terms of the plea
agreement, Count 1 will be dismissed at the time of
This form can be found at two
locations on the Court's web page:
www.iand.uscourts.gov, ((1)Clerk of Court, Forms,
Criminal Forms, G.1 Plea Documents, Waiver Of Objections
Form.002.002.pdf; (2) Judges' Information, Magistrate
Williams, Standing Forms).