United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
February 28, 2018, the above-named defendant, Cesar
Mendez-Chavez, by consent (Doc. 12), appeared before the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered a plea of
guilty to Counts 1, 2 and 3 of the Indictment (Doc. 2). 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 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 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 a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea of guilty to
defendant acknowledged that he had received a copy of the
Indictment, and he had fully discussed the charge with his
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 Indictment 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,
the possibility that restitution could be ordered, and term
of supervised release. Because this charge involves fraud or
other intentionally deceptive practices, the defendant was
advised that the court also could order him to provide notice
of the conviction to victims of the offense.
respect to each of Counts 1, 2 and 3, the
defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $250,
000; the maximum term of imprisonment is 10
years; and the maximum period of supervised release
is 3 years. Defendant was advised that if he
pled guilty to all three counts, the Court could order the
sentences to run consecutively, such that the maximum term of
imprisonment for all three counts would be 30
years, the maximum fine could be $750,
000, and the maximum term of supervised release
could be 9 years.
defendant also was advised that the court is obligated to
impose a special assessment of $100.00 on
each count, for a total of $300.00, 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