United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
October 19, 2017, the above-named defendant, Tobey Hines, by
consent (Doc. 80), appeared before the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11, and entered a plea of guilty to Count 67 of the
Indictment (Doc. 7). 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 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 defendant
and defendant's counsel, the Court determined that
defendant understood the terms of the plea agreement. The
Court summarized the plea agreement, and made certain
defendant understood its terms.
Court explained to defendant that because the plea agreement
provided for dismissal of charges, if defendant 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 defendant would have an opportunity to
withdraw the plea of guilty and change it to not guilty.
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,
the possibility that restitution could be ordered, and the
maximum term of supervised release. Because this charge
involves fraud or other intentionally deceptive practices,
defendant was advised that the Court also could order
defendant to provide notice of the conviction to victims of
the offense. With respect to Count 67,
defendant was advised that the maximum term of imprisonment
is twenty (20) years; the maximum period of
supervised release is three (3) years; and
the maximum fine is the greatest of the following
amounts: (1) twice the gross gain to defendant
resulting from the offense; (2) twice the gross loss
resulting from the offense; (3) $250, 000; or (4) the amount
specified by statute in the section defining the offense.
also was advised that the Court is obligated to impose a
special assessment of $100.00, 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
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 ...