United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge
September 20, 2017, the above-named defendant Raymond
Hockenberger, by consent (Doc. 20), 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. The 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 charges.
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 term of supervised release.
respect to Count One, defendant was advised
that the maximum fine is $250, 000; the
maximum term of imprisonment is ten (10)
years; the maximum period of supervised release is
life; and the minimum period of supervised
release is five (5) years.
also was advised that the Court is obligated to impose a
special assessment of $100.00 for each count
to which defendant pled guilty, 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 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 release without credit
for time previously served on supervised release. Defendant
was advised that parole has been abolished.
Court also explained to defendant that the district judge
would determine the appropriate sentence at the sentencing
hearing. Defendant confirmed that defendant understood the
Court would not determine the appropriate sentence until
after the preparation of a presentence report, which the
parties would have the opportunity to challenge. Defendant
acknowledged that defendant understood the sentence imposed
might be different from what defendant's ...