United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
WILLIAMS, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
March 1, 2017, the above-named defendant, Shawn Valentine
Chevchuc, by consent (Doc. 25), appeared before the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered pleas of
guilty to Counts One and Nine of the Superseding Indictment
(Doc. 14). After cautioning and examining the defendant under
oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11,
the court determined that the guilty pleas were knowledgeable
and voluntary, and the offenses charged were supported by an
independent basis in fact containing each of the essential
elements of the offenses. The court therefore RECOMMENDS that
the pleas 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 knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas of guilty to
defendant acknowledged that he had received a copy of the
Superceding Indictment, and he had fully discussed these
charges with his 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 his 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 he 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 his pleas of guilty and change them to not guilty.
defendant was advised also that after his pleas were
accepted, he would have no right to withdraw the pleas at a
later date, even if the sentence imposed was different from
what the defendant or his counsel anticipated.
court summarized the charges against the defendant, and
listed the elements of the crimes. The court determined that
the defendant understood each and every element of the
crimes, and the defendant's counsel confirmed that the
defendant understood each and every element of the crimes
court elicited a full and complete factual basis for all
elements of the crimes charged in each Count of the
Superceding Indictment to which the defendant was pleading
court advised the defendant of the consequences of his pleas,
including, for each Count, the maximum fine, the maximum term
of imprisonment, and the mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment, and term of supervised release.
respect to Count One, the defendant was advised that the
maximum fine is $10, 000, 000.00; the maximum term of
imprisonment is life; the mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment is 10 years; the maximum period of supervised
release is life; and the minimum period of supervised release
is 5 years.
respect to Count Nine, the defendant was advised that the
maximum fine is $250, 000.00; the maximum term of
imprisonment is 10 years; and the maximum period of
supervised release is 3 years.
court also advised the defendant that the following statutory
penalties could apply if he is an Armed Career Criminal: a
maximum fine of $250, 000.00; a maximum imprisonment term of
life; a mandatory minimum term of ...