United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
C.J.
Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge .
On
February 22, 2018, the above-named defendant Danquel Antwain
Faulkner, by consent (Doc. 26), appeared before the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered a plea of
guilty to Counts One and Eight of the Superseding Indictment
(Doc. 20). After cautioning and examining defendant under
oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11,
the Court determined that the guilty pleas were knowledgeable
and voluntary, and the offenses charged were supported by an
independent basis in fact containing each of the essential
elements of the offenses. The Court therefore
RECOMMENDS that the pleas 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 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.
The
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 pleas of guilty and change them to not guilty.
Defendant
was advised also that after the pleas were accepted,
defendant would have no right to withdraw the pleas at a
later date, even if the sentence imposed was different from
what defendant or defendant's counsel anticipated.
The
Court summarized the charges 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 crimes charged in each Count of the
Indictment to which defendant was pleading guilty.
The
Court advised defendant of the consequences of each plea,
including the maximum fine, the maximum term of imprisonment,
the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, and term of
supervised release.
With
respect to Count One (1), 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. If the Court finds
defendant has three previous convictions for a violent felony
or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions
different from one another, the maximum fine 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.
With
respect to Count Eight (8), defendant was
advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000;
the maximum term of imprisonment is life;
the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is five
(5) years; and the period of supervised release is
five (5) years.
Because
there are multiple counts, defendant was advised that the
sentences could be run consecutively for a maximum fine of
$500, 000; a maximum term of imprisonment of
life; a mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment of twenty (20) ...