United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
WILLIAMS CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
20, 2017, the above-named defendant, Abundio Garcia-Gonzalez,
by consent (Doc. 10), appeared before the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11, and entered a plea of guilty to Count
One 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 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 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 a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea of guilty to
defendant acknowledged that he had received a copy of the
Indictment, and he had fully discussed the charge with his
court determined that there was no plea agreement.
defendant was advised also that after his plea was accepted,
he would have no right to withdraw the plea at a later date,
even if the sentence imposed was different from what the
defendant or his 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 crime charged in Count One of the Indictment
to which the defendant was pleading guilty.
court advised the defendant of the consequences of his plea,
including the maximum fine, the maximum term of imprisonment,
and term of supervised release.
respect to Count One, the defendant was
advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000;
the maximum term of imprisonment is 2 years;
and the maximum period of supervised release is 1
defendant was also advised that if he was removed subsequent
to a conviction for commission of three or more misdemeanors
involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or a
felony, then with respect to Count One the
maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years;
the maximum fine is $250, 000; and the
maximum period of supervised release is 3
defendant was further advised that if he was removed after a
prior conviction for an aggravated felony, then with respect
to Count One the maximum term of
imprisonment is 20 years; the maximum fine
is $250, 000; and the maximum period of
supervised release is 3 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