Opinion
Case No. 1:14-cr-00072
12-18-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN HAWKINS, Defendant.
Honorable Paul L. Maloney REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to W.D. MICH. L.CR.R. 11.1, I conducted a plea hearing in the captioned case on December 18, 2014, after receiving the written consent of defendant and all counsel. At the hearing, defendant Steven Hawkins entered a plea of guilty to Count 12 of the Second Superseding Indictment in exchange for the undertakings made by the government in the written plea agreement. In Count 12 of the Second Superseding Indictment, defendant is charged with maintaining a drug-involved premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 856(a)(1) and 856(b). On the basis of the record made at the hearing, I find that defendant is fully capable and competent to enter an informed plea; that the plea is made knowingly and with full understanding of each of the rights waived by defendant; that it is made voluntarily and free from any force, threats, or promises, apart from the promises in the plea agreement; that the defendant understands the nature of the charge and penalties provided by law; and that the plea has a sufficient basis in fact.
I therefore recommend that defendant's plea of guilty to Count 12 of the Second Superseding Indictment be accepted, that the court adjudicate defendant guilty, and that the written plea agreement be considered for acceptance at the time of sentencing. Acceptance of the plea, adjudication of guilt, acceptance of the plea agreement, and imposition of sentence are specifically reserved for the district judge. Date: December 18, 2014
/s/ Ellen S. Carmody
ELLEN S. CARMODY
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO PARTIES
You have the right to de novo review of the foregoing findings by the district judge. Any application for review must be in writing, must specify the portions of the findings or proceedings objected to, and must be filed and served no later than14 days after the plea hearing. See W.D. MICH. L.CR.R. 11.1(d).