Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Jackson

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division

July 20, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
EARL JACKSON, a/k/a E Mack, Defendant.

          RULE 11(c)(1)(C) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEAS OF GUILTY

          KELLY C.E. MAHONEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On July 20, 2018, the above-named Defendant, Earl Jackson, by consent (Doc. 20), appeared before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered pleas of guilty to Counts 2, 3, and 4 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 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 charged in Counts 2, 3, and 4 of the Indictment (Doc. 1). The court therefore RECOMMENDS that the pleas of guilty be accepted and the Defendant be adjudged guilty.

         At the 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.

         The 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 voluntary pleas of guilty to the charges.

         The Defendant acknowledged that he had received a copy of the Indictment, and he had fully discussed these charges with his attorney.

         The 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 charges, and the Defendant's counsel confirmed that the Defendant understood each and every element of the charges.

         The court elicited a full and complete factual basis for all elements of the crimes charged in each Count of the Indictment.

         The court advised the Defendant of the consequences of his pleas, including, for each Count, the maximum fine and the maximum term of imprisonment and that the court could impose the sentences to run concurrently or consecutively.

         With respect to Count 2, the Defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $4, 000, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is 60 years; the minimum term of imprisonment is 1 year; the maximum period of supervised release is life; and the minimum term of supervised release is 6 years.

         With respect to Count 3, the Defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $4, 000, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is 60 years; the minimum term of imprisonment is 1 year; the maximum period of supervised release is life; and the minimum term of supervised release is 6 years.

         With respect to Count 4, the Defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $2, 000, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is 30 years; the maximum period of supervised release is life; and the minimum period of supervised release is 6 years.

         The court advised the Defendant that he was pleading guilty under a plea agreement with the Government that provided for an agreed upon advisory sentencing guideline range and the imposition of a specific, agreed sentence at the time of the sentencing hearing. [1]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 follow the agreed upon advisory sentencing range 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 use a different advisory guideline range or impose a different sentence, then the Defendant would have an opportunity to withdraw his pleas 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) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, he would have an advisory guideline range under the career offender provisions of USSG § 4B1.1, and he would be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 204 months (17 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.

         The Defendant also was advised that the court was obligated to impose a special assessment of $100.00 on each count, for a total of $300.00 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.

         The 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.