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. Vasquez-Adame

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

May 25, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
PENNILYN VASQUEZ-ADAME, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

          C. J. Williams, Chief United States Magistrate Judge

         On May 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.

         At the 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.

         The 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 the charges.

         The defendant acknowledged that she had received a copy of the Indictment, and she had fully discussed these charges with her attorney.

         The 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.

         The 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.

         The 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.

         The 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.

         The 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.

         The 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 supervised release.

         With 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.

         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 she understood all of the above consequences.

         The 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 in ...


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.