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. Giron-Amador

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

January 10, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
CARLOS ANTONIO GIRON-AMADOR, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

          C.J. Williams, Chief United States Magistrate Judge

         On January 3, 2017, the above-named defendant, Carlos Antonio Giron-Amador, by consent (Doc. 21), 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 (Doc 2). 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 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 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 the charge.

         The defendant acknowledged that he had received a copy of the Indictment, and he had fully discussed the charge with his attorney.

         The court determined that there was no plea agreement.

         With respect to Count One, the defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is 2 years; and the maximum period of supervised release is 1 year.

         The defendant was advised that if he was removed subsequent to a conviction for the commission of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or a felony, then with respect to Count One, the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years; the maximum fine is $250, 000; and the maximum term of supervised release is 3 years.

         The defendant was advised that if he was removed after a prior conviction for an aggravated felony, then with respect to Count One, the maximum term of imprisonment is 20 years; the maximum fine is $250, 000; and the maximum term of supervised release is 3 years.

         The 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.

         The 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.

         The 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 prison all or part of the term of supervised release without credit for time previously served on supervised release.

         The court also explained to the defendant that the district judge would determine the appropriate sentence for him at the sentencing hearing. The defendant confirmed that he 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 he understood the sentence imposed might be different from what his attorney had estimated. The defendant also was advised that both he and the Government would have the right to appeal the sentence. The defendant was advised that parole has been abolished.

         The defendant indicated he had conferred fully with his counsel and he was fully satisfied with his counsel. The defendant's attorney indicated ...


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.