United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Williams, Chief United States Magistrate Judge
September 14, 2017, the above-named defendant Diego
Rivera-Raymundo, by consent (Doc. 13), 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 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 defendant be adjudged guilty.
commencement of the Rule 11 proceeding, defendant was placed
under oath and advised that if defendant answered any
questions falsely, defendant could be prosecuted for perjury
or for making a false statement. Defendant also was advised
that in any such prosecution, the Government could use
against defendant any statements made under oath.
Court asked a number of questions to ensure defendant's
mental capacity to enter a plea. Defendant stated
defendant's full name, age, and extent of schooling. The
Court inquired into defendant's history of mental illness
and addiction to narcotic drugs.
Court further inquired into whether 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 defendant was not suffering from any mental
disability that would impair defendant's ability to make
knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas of guilty to the
acknowledged that defendant had received a copy of the
Indictment, and had fully discussed these charges with
Court determined that there was no plea agreement.
was advised also that after the plea was accepted, defendant
would have no right to withdraw the plea at a later date,
even if the sentence imposed was different from what
defendant or defendant's counsel anticipated.
Court summarized the charge against defendant, and listed the
elements of the crime. The Court determined that defendant
understood each and every element of the crime, and
defendant's counsel confirmed that 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
Indictment to which defendant was pleading guilty.
Court advised defendant of the consequences of the plea,
including the maximum fine, the maximum term of imprisonment,
and the maximum term of supervised release. With respect to
Count One, defendant was advised that the
maximum fine is $250, 000; the maximum term
of imprisonment is two (2) years; and the
maximum period of supervised release is one (1)
year. Defendant was advised that, if defendant was
removed subsequent to a conviction for commission of a felony
or commission of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs
or crimes against the person, then the maximum fine is
$250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment
is ten (10) years; and the maximum period of
supervised release is three (3) years.
Defendant was further advised that, if defendant was removed
after a prior conviction for an aggravated felony, then the
maximum fine is $250, 000; the maximum term
of imprisonment is twenty (20) years; and
the maximum period of supervised release is three (3)
also was advised that the Court is obligated to impose a
special assessment of $100, which defendant
must pay. Defendant also was advised of the collateral
consequences of a plea of guilty. Defendant acknowledged that
defendant understood all of the above consequences.
Court advised defendant that, because defendant is not a
United States citizen, it is likely defendant will be
deported from the United States after serving any prison
sentence imposed. The Court also advised defendant that this
conviction may affect defendant's ability to ever
lawfully reenter the United States.
Court explained supervised release to defendant, and advised
that a term of supervised release could be imposed in
addition to the sentence of imprisonment. Defendant was
advised that there are conditions of supervised release, and
that if defendant were found to have violated a condition of
supervised release, then the term of supervised release could
be revoked and defendant could be required to serve in prison
all or part of the term of supervised ...