United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
K.E. Mahoney United States Magistrate Judge
9, 2018, the above-named Defendant, Manuela Cibrian-Lopez, by
consent (Doc. 86), appeared before the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11, and entered pleas of guilty to Counts 1 and 2
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
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 the Defendant be adjudged
commencement of the Rule 11 proceeding, the Defendant was
placed under oath and advised that if she answered any
questions falsely, she could be prosecuted for perjury or for
making a false statement. She also was advised that in any
such prosecution, the Government could use against her any
statements she made under oath.
court asked a number of questions to ensure the
Defendant's mental capacity to enter a plea. The
Defendant stated her full name, her age, and the extent of
her 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 her ability to
make knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas of guilty to
Defendant acknowledged that she had received a copy of the
Indictment, and she had fully discussed these charges with
court determined that there was no plea agreement.
Defendant was advised also that after her pleas were
accepted, she would have no right to withdraw the pleas at a
later date, even if the sentence imposed was different from
what the Defendant or her counsel anticipated.
court summarized the charges against the Defendant, and
listed the elements of the crimes. The court determined that
the Defendant understood each and every element of the
crimes, and the Defendant's counsel confirmed that the
Defendant understood each and every element of the crimes
court elicited a full and complete factual basis for all
elements of the crimes charged in each Count of the
Indictment to which the Defendant was pleading guilty.
court advised the Defendant of the consequences of her pleas,
including, for each Count, 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 release.
respect to Count 1, the Defendant was
advised that the maximum fine is $1, 000,
000; the maximum term of imprisonment is 20
years; the maximum period of supervised release is
3 years; and the minimum period of
supervised release is life.
respect to Count 2, the Defendant was
advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000;
the maximum term of imprisonment is 10
years, the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is
5 years, and the term of imprisonment on
this count must run consecutive to any term of imprisonment
imposed on Count 1 of the Indictment; the maximum period of
supervised release is 3 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 $200.00, which
the Defendant must pay. The Defendant also was advised of the
collateral consequences of a plea of guilty. The Defendant
acknowledged that she 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 ...