United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
K. E. MAHONEY UNITED STALES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
September 12, 2018, the above-named Defendant, Andrew
Matheason, 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 One of the Information (Doc.
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 knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas of guilty to
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.
court explained to the Defendant that 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
pleas of guilty and change them 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,
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,
the mandatory minimum 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 $250, 000;
the maximum term of imprisonment is 20
years; and the maximum period of supervised release
is 3 years.
Defendant was further advised that Count 1 may be subject to
the alternative fine provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3571,
where under this section, the maximum fine that may be
imposed on Defendant is the greatest of the following
amounts: (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 this
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