United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
K.E. MAHONEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23, 2018, the above-named Defendant, David Giannetto, by
consent (Doc. 4), appeared before the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11, and entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the
Information (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 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 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.
From this inquiry, the court determined that the Defendant
was not suffering from any mental disability that would
impair his ability to make knowing, intelligent, and
voluntary pleas of guilty to the charges.
Defendant acknowledged that he had received a copy of the
Information, and he had fully discussed these charges with
court determined that the 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 the
Defendant and his attorney, the court determined that the
Defendant understood the terms of the plea agreement. The
court summarized the plea agreement, and made certain the
Defendant understood its terms.
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,
ascertained that his counsel had explained each and every
element of the crime fully to him, 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 crimes charged in each Count of the
Information 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,
and the possibility that restitution could be ordered.
Because this charge involves fraud or other intentionally
deceptive practices, the Defendant was advised that the court
also could order his to provide notice of the conviction to
victims of the offense.
respect to Count 1, the Defendant was advised that the
maximum fine is $1, 000, 000; the maximum term of
imprisonment is 30 years; and the maximum period of
supervised release is 5 years.
Court also advised the Defendant that he may be subject to
the alternative fine provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3571,
under which the maximum fine that may be imposed is the
greatest of the following: (1) twice the gross gain to
defendant resulting from the offense; (2) twice the gross
loss resulting from the office; (3) $250, 000; or (4) the
amount specified in the section defining the offense.
Defendant also was advised that the court is obligated to
impose a special assessment of $100.00, 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 consequences.
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