United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
WILLIAMS, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28, 2017, the above-named defendant Kevin Robert Kappmeyer,
by consent (Doc. 4), 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 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 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. Pursuant to the plea
agreement, the defendant agreed to pay full restitution to
all victims of the offense, including relevant conduct
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 plea of guilty and
change them to not guilty.
court explained to the defendant that 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 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,
ascertained that his counsel had explained each and every
element of the crime fully to him, 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 each Count of the
Information 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,
the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, and the
possibility that restitution could be ordered. Because this
charge involves fraud or other intentionally deceptive
practices, the defendant was advised that the court also
could order his to provide notice of the conviction to
victims of the offense.
respect to Count 1, 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
years. Additionally, the defendant was advised that he may be
subject to the alternative fine provisions of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3571. Under this section, the maximum fine that may be
imposed is the greatest of the following amounts; (1) twice
the gross gain to the defendant resulting from the offense;
(2) twice the gross loss resulting from the offense; (3)
$250, 000; or (4) the amount specified in the section
defining the offense.
respect to Count 2, 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. With respect to the mandatory sentence of 2 years'
imprisonment, the Court may not run the mandatory sentence of
2 years' imprisonment concurrently in whole or in part
with any sentence imposed on Count 1. Further, the count may
not in any way reduce the term to be imposed on ...