United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
Williams, Chief United States Magistrate Judge
24, 2017, the above-named defendant, Pennilyn Vasquez-Adame,
by consent (Doc. 70), appeared before the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11, and entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the
Indictment (Doc. 5). 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.
commencement of the Rule 11 proceeding, the defendant was
placed under oath and advised that if she answered any
questions falsely, she could be prosecuted for perjury or for
making a false statement. She also was advised that in any
such prosecution, the Government could use against her any
statements she made under oath.
court asked a number of questions to ensure the
defendant's mental capacity to enter a plea. The
defendant stated her full name, her age, and the extent of
her 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 her ability to
make knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas of guilty to
defendant acknowledged that she had received a copy of the
Indictment, and she 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 her 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 she is pleading
guilty pursuant to a plea agreement 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 her pleas of guilty and
change them to not guilty.
defendant was advised also that after her plea was accepted,
she would have no right to withdraw the plea at a later date,
even if the sentence imposed was different from what the
defendant or her 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 crimes charged in Count 1 of the Indictment
to which the defendant was pleading guilty.
court advised the defendant of the consequences of her plea,
including the maximum fine, the maximum term of imprisonment,
the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, and term of
respect to Count 1, the defendant was advised that the
maximum fine is $10, 000, 000; 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.
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 she understood all of the above consequences.
court explained supervised release to the defendant, and
advised her 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 she were found to have violated a
condition of supervised release, then her term of supervised
release could be revoked and she could be required to serve