United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division
RULE 11(C)(1)(C) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING
PLEA OF GUILTY
K.E Mahoney, United States Magistrate Judge.
11, 2018, the above-named Defendant Curtis Van Dam, by
consent (Doc. 41), 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. 1). After cautioning and examining the
Defendant under oath concerning the subject 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 the
essential elements of the offense charged in Count One of the
Indictment. The court therefore RECOMMENDS
that the plea of guilty be accepted and the Defendant be
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 his 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 knowing,
intelligent, and a voluntary plea of guilty to the charge.
Defendant acknowledged that he had received a copy of the
Indictment, and he had fully discussed these charge with his
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 charge,
and the Defendant's counsel confirmed that the Defendant
understood each and every element of the charge.
court elicited a full and complete factual basis for all
elements of the crime charged in Count One of the Indictment.
court advised the Defendant of the consequences of his plea,
including, the maximum fine and the maximum term of
respect to Count One, the Defendant was
advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000;
the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is 15
years; the maximum term of imprisonment is
30 years; the minimum period of supervised
release is 5 years; and the maximum period
of supervised release is life.
court advised the Defendant that he was pleading guilty under
a plea agreement with the Government that provided for the
imposition of a specific, agreed sentence at the time of the
sentencing hearing. 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 explained to the
Defendant that at the sentencing hearing, the district judge
would consider whether or not to accept the plea agreement
and impose the agreed sentence. If the district judge decided
to accept the plea agreement and impose the agreed sentence,
then the Defendant would receive the agreed sentence. If the
district judge decided to reject the plea agreement and
impose a different sentence, then the Defendant would have an
opportunity to withdraw his plea of guilty and plead not
guilty. The court further advised the Defendant that pursuant
to the terms of the plea agreement, which provided that he
was pleading guilty pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C), Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, he would be sentenced to a term
of imprisonment of 180 months (15 years).
The court explained to the Defendant that if the district
judge rejected the plea agreement and the Defendant did not
withdraw his guilty plea, then the court could dispose of the
case less favorably toward him than the plea agreement
contemplated, including imposing a longer sentence than the
one to which the parties had agreed in the plea agreement.
Defendant also was advised that the court was obligated to
impose a special assessment of $100.00 which
he must pay. He 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 the Defendant that a term of supervised release would
be imposed in addition to the sentence of imprisonment. The
Defendant was advised that among other conditions of
supervised release, he could not commit another federal,
state, or local crime while on supervised release, and he
could not possess illegal controlled substances while on
supervised release. The Defendant was advised 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 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.
also acknowledges that his plea agreement contains an appeal
waiver, and he agrees to waive his ...