Opinion
Case No. 1:13-CR-154
10-07-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GERARDO MOCTEZUMA-JUAREZ, Defendant.
Hon. Paul L. Maloney REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to W.D. Mich. LCrR 11.1 and upon a request of the district court, I conducted a felony plea hearing in this matter on October 7, 2014, after receiving the written consent of the defendant, the defendant's attorney, and the attorney for the government. These consents were also placed on the record in open court.
Defendant Gerardo Moctezuma-Juarez is charged in Count 2 of a three-count Indictment with falsely representing a social security account number to be the social security number assigned to him by the Commissioner of Social Security. On the basis of this record, I found that defendant was competent to enter a plea of guilty and that his plea was knowledgeable and voluntary with a full understanding of each of the rights waived by the defendant, that the defendant fully understood the nature of the charge and the consequences of his plea, and that the defendant's plea had a sufficient basis in fact which contained all of the elements of the offense charged.
There was no written plea agreement in this case, but there were some oral promises which were knowingly and voluntarily entered into.
I accepted the plea of guilty, subject to final acceptance of the plea by the District Judge. I ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.
Recommendation
Based upon the foregoing, I respectfully recommend that the defendant's plea of guilty to Count 2 of the Indictment be accepted, and that the court adjudicate the defendant guilty of that charge. Dated: October 7, 2014
/s/ Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr.
HUGH W. BRENNEMAN, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO PARTIES
You have the right to de novo review by the district judge of the foregoing findings. 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 than fourteen (14) days after the plea hearing. See W.D. Mich. LCrR 11.1(b). A failure to file timely objections may result in the waiver of any further right to seek appellate review of the plea-taking procedure. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Neuman v. Rivers, 125 F.3d 315, 322-23 (6 Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1030 (1997); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6 Cir. 1981).