Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Coffer

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division

November 27, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
KAMECHIE KASHUN COFFER, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          C.J. Williams, Chief United States Magistrate Judge

         On November 27, 2017, the above-named defendant, Kamechie Kashun Coffer, by consent (Doc. 30), 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.

         At the 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.

         The 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.

         Defendant acknowledged that defendant had received a copy of the Indictment, and had fully discussed these charges with defendant's counsel. The Court determined that there was no plea agreement. Defendant was advised 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.

         The 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.

         The Court elicited a full and complete factual basis for all elements of the crime charged in Count One of the Indictment, which charges defendant with a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(g)(3) and 924(e). Notably, while the Indictment alleged that defendant violated Section 922(g)(3) by possessing a firearm and approximately 13 rounds of ammunition while he was an unlawful user of a controlled substance, defendant denied possessing the charged firearm. However, defendant admitted to possessing some of the charged ammunition. Possession of ammunition in or affecting interstate commerce as an unlawful user of a controlled substance is an independently sufficient factual basis for finding an offense under the statute charged in Count One of the Indictment. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).

         The Court advised defendant of the consequences of the plea, including the maximum fine, the maximum term of imprisonment, the potential mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, and the 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 ten (10) years; and the maximum period of supervised release is three (3) years. However, defendant was also advised that, if the Court finds defendant has three previous convictions for a violent felony or serious drug offense, then pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 924(e), the maximum fine for Count One is $250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is life; the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is fifteen (15) years; and the maximum period of supervised release is five (5) years.

         Defendant 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.

         The 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.

         The 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 attorney had estimated. Defendant also was advised that both defendant and the Government would have the right to appeal the sentence.

         Defendant indicated that defendant had conferred fully with defendant's counsel and was fully satisfied with defendant's counsel. Defendant's attorney indicated that there was a factual basis for the guilty plea.

         Defendant was advised fully of the right to plead not guilty, or having already entered a not guilty plea to persist in such ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.