United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
K.E. Mahoney, United States Magistrate Judge.
26, 2018, the above-named Defendant, Joe Elliott Sinnott, by
consent (Doc. 21), 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
Indictment (Doc. 1). 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.
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 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.
court explained to the Defendant that because the plea
agreement provided for dismissal of charges if he 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 the Defendant would have an opportunity
to withdraw his plea of guilty and change it to not guilty.
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 mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, the possibility
that restitution could be ordered, and term of supervised
respect to Count 1, the Defendant was
advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000;
the maximum term of imprisonment is 20
years; the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is
5 years; the minimum period of supervised
release is 5 years; and the maximum term of
supervised release is life.
Defendant was also 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
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