United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
Williams, Chief United States Magistrate Judge
January 9, 2017, the above-named defendant, Dionicio
Pardino-Santiago, by consent (Doc. 13), 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
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
Indictment, and he had fully discussed the charge with his
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 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 $250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment
is 2 years; and the maximum period of supervised release is 1
defendant was removed subsequent to a conviction for
commission of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs,
crimes against the person, or both, or a felony, with respect
to Count One, the defendant was advised that the maximum fine
is $250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years;
and the maximum period of supervised release is 3 years.
defendant was removed after a prior conviction for an
aggravated felony, with respect to Count One, the defendant
was advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000; the maximum
term of imprisonment is 20 years; and 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 ...