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. Fransen

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

June 5, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
BRADLEY LOREN FRANSEN, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

          C. J. Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge.

         On June 2, 2017, the above-named defendant, Bradley Loren Fransen, by consent (Doc. 16), appeared before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered pleas of guilty to Counts 1 and 2 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 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.

         At the 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.

         The 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 the charges.

         The defendant acknowledged that he had received a copy of the Indictment, and he had fully discussed these charges with his 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 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.

         The court explained to the defendant that because he was 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 his pleas of guilty and change them to not guilty.

         The 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.

         The 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 charged.

         The court elicited a full and complete factual basis for all elements of the crimes charged in each Count of the Indictment to which the defendant was pleading guilty.

         The court advised the defendant of the consequences of his pleas, including, for each Count, the maximum fine, the maximum term of imprisonment, the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, and terms 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.

         With respect to Count 2, the defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is life; the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is 5 years, consecutive to any term of imprisonment imposed on Count 1; and the maximum period of supervised release is 5 years.

         The defendant was advised that in aggregate his maximum penalties for Counts 1 and 2 equal: the maximum fine is $10, 250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is life; the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is 15 years; the maximum period of ...


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.