United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
April 18, 2017, the above-named defendant, Darrell Clark
Turner, by consent (Doc. 5), appeared before the undersigned
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11, and entered a plea of guilty to Counts
One and Two of the Information (Doc. 2), after waiving his
right to Indictment (Doc. 3). 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 guilty.
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
Information, and he had fully discussed these charges with
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 he was pleading
guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, 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, ascertained that his counsel had explained each and
every element of the crimes fully to him, and the
Defendant's counsel confirmed that the Defendant
understood each and every element of the crimes charged.
court elicited a full and complete factual basis for all
elements of the crimes charged in each Count of the
Information to which the Defendant was pleading guilty.
court advised the Defendant of the consequences of his pleas,
including, for each Count, the maximum fine, the maximum term
of imprisonment, the mandatory term of imprisonment, the
possibility that restitution could be ordered,  and term of
supervised release. Because these charges involve fraud or
other intentionally deceptive practices, the Defendant was
advised that the court also could order him to provide notice
of the conviction to victims of the offense.
respect to Count One, the Defendant was advised that the
maximum fine is $250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment
is 5 years; and the maximum period of supervised release is 3
respect to Count Two, the Defendant was advised that the
maximum fine is $250, 000; the mandatory term of imprisonment
is 2 years; and the maximum period of supervised release is 1
year. Defendant was further advised that with respect to the
mandatory sentence of two years' imprisonment, the Court
may not run the mandatory sentence of two years'
imprisonment on Count Two concurrently in whole or in part
with any sentence imposed on Count One. Further defendant was
advised, the Court may not in any way reduce the term to be
imposed on Count One to compensate for, or otherwise take
into account, the mandatory consecutive two-year term of
imprisonment impose on Count Two.
was also advised of the alternative fine provisions of 18
U.S.C. § 3571, which states the maximum fine that may be
imposed on defendant for each count is the greatest of the
following amounts: (1) twice the gross gain to defendant
resulting from the offense; (2) twice the gross loss
resulting from ...