United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
Williams, Chief United States Magistrate Judge
January 3, 2017, the above-named defendant, Roque Rodriguez
Arellano, by consent (Doc. 121), 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 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 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.
court 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 a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea of guilty to
defendant acknowledged that he had received a copy of the
Superseding Indictment, and he had fully discussed the charge
with his attorney.
court determined that there was no plea agreement.
defendant was advised also that after his plea was accepted,
he would have no right to withdraw the plea at a later date,
even if the sentence imposed was different from what the
defendant or his 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 crime charged in Count One of the Superseding
Indictment to which the defendant was pleading guilty.
court advised the defendant of the consequences of his plea,
including the maximum fine, the maximum term of imprisonment,
and term of supervised release.
respect to Count One, the defendant was advised that the
maximum fine is $1, 000, 000; the maximum term of
imprisonment is 20 years; the maximum period of supervised
release is life; and the minimum 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 he understood all of the above consequences.
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 explained supervised release to the defendant, and
advised him 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 he were found to have violated a
condition of supervised release, then his term of supervised
release could be revoked and he could be required to serve in