United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF
K.E. MAHONEY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
November 16, 2018, the above-named Defendant, Cody Steven
Groat, by consent (Doc. 29), appeared before the undersigned
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11, and entered pleas of guilty to Counts
1, 2, 4, and 5 of the Superseding Indictment (Doc.
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 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
Superseding Indictment, and he had fully discussed these
charges with his attorney.
court determined that there was no plea agreement.
Defendant was advised also that after his pleas were
accepted, he would have no right to withdraw the pleas at a
later date, even if the sentence imposed was different from
what the Defendant or his 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
Superseding Indictment to which the Defendant was pleading
court advised the Defendant of the consequences of his 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 $10, 000,
000; the maximum term of imprisonment is
life; the mandatory minimum term of
imprisonment is 10 years; the maximum period
of supervised release is life; and the
minimum period of supervised release is 5
respect to Count 2, the Defendant was
advised that the maximum fine is $5, 000,
000; the maximum term of imprisonment is 40
years; the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is
5 years; the maximum period of supervised
release is life; and the minimum period of
supervised release is 4 years.
respect to Count 4, the Defendant was
advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000;
the maximum term of imprisonment is 10
years; the maximum period of supervised release is
court also advised the Defendant that the sentences on Counts
1, 2, and 4 could be imposed to ...