United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
K.E. Mahoney United States Magistrate Judge.
September 14, 2017, the above-named Defendant, Rene Morales,
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 Count 1 of the
Information (Doc. 1). 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
his attorney. The Court determined that Defendant knowingly
waived Indictment and consented to proceeding by a United
States Attorney's Information. Doc. 3.
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 1 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,
and supervised release.
respect to Count 1, 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 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 he understood all of the above
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 the Defendant, and
advised him 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 he were found to have violated a
condition of supervised release, then his term of supervised
release could be revoked and he could be required to serve in