From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Lopez

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nov 13, 2014
Case No. 1:13-cr-00244-PLM-4 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2014)

Opinion

Case No. 1:13-cr-00244-PLM-4

11-13-2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ERIC LOPEZ, 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 November 13, 2014, after receiving the written consent of defendant and all counsel. At the hearing, defendant Eric Lopez entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Third Superseding Indictment in exchange for the undertakings made by the government in the written plea agreement. In Count 1 of the Third Superseding Indictment, defendant is charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute at least 500 grams of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, and a quantity of marijuana, a Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, sections 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(ii) and 841(b)(1)(D). 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.

Accordingly, I recommend that defendant's plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Third 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: November 13, 2014

/s/ Phillip J. Green

PHILLIP J. GREEN

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).


Summaries of

United States v. Lopez

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Nov 13, 2014
Case No. 1:13-cr-00244-PLM-4 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2014)
Case details for

United States v. Lopez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ERIC LOPEZ, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Nov 13, 2014

Citations

Case No. 1:13-cr-00244-PLM-4 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2014)