From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Quinto-Pascual

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION
Jan 29, 2020
No. 19-cr-2042-CJW (N.D. Iowa Jan. 29, 2020)

Opinion

No. 19-cr-2042-CJW

01-29-2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALBERTO QUINTO-PASCUAL, Defendant.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On January 28, 2020, the above-named defendant appeared before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge by consent and, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment, Possession of a Firearm With an Obliterated Serial Number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(k) and 924(a)(1)(B), and Possession of a Firearm by a Drug User, in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 922(g)(3) and 924(a)(2). After cautioning and examining Defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that Defendant's decision to plead guilty 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 I therefore RECOMMEND that the Court ACCEPT Defendant's guilty pleas and adjudge Defendant guilty.

At the commencement of the Rule 11 proceeding, I placed Defendant under oath and explained that if Defendant answered any question falsely, the Government could prosecute Defendant for perjury or for making a false statement. I also advised Defendant that in any such prosecution, the Government could use against Defendant any statements made under oath.

I then asked Defendant a number of questions to ensure Defendant had the requisite mental capacity to enter a plea. I elicited Defendant's full name, age, and extent of education. I also inquired into Defendant's history of mental illness; use of illegal and/or prescription drugs; and use of alcohol. From this inquiry, I determined Defendant was not suffering from any mental disability that would impair Defendant's ability to make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary guilty plea.

Defendant acknowledged receipt of a copy of the Indictment and further acknowledged that Defendant had fully discussed the Indictment with Defendant's counsel. Defendant acknowledged that Defendant had fully conferred with Defendant's counsel prior to deciding to plead guilty and that Defendant was satisfied with counsel's services.

I fully advised Defendant of all the rights Defendant would be giving up if Defendant decided to plead guilty, including the following:

1. The right to assistance of counsel at every stage of the case;

2. The right to a speedy, public trial;

3. The right to have the case tried by a jury selected from a cross-section of the community;

4. That Defendant would be presumed innocent, and would be found not guilty unless the Government could prove each and every element of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt;

5. That Defendant would have the right to see and hear all of the Government's witnesses, and Defendant's attorney would have the right to cross-examine any witnesses called by the Government;
6. That Defendant would have the right to subpoena witnesses to testify at the trial, and if Defendant could not afford to pay the costs of bringing these witnesses to court, then the government would pay those costs;

7. That Defendant would have the privilege against self-incrimination: i.e., Defendant could choose to testify at trial, but need not do so; if Defendant chose not to testify, then the Court would instruct the jury that it could not draw any adverse inference from Defendant's decision not to testify; and

8. That any verdict by the jury would have to be unanimous.

I explained that if Defendant pleaded guilty, Defendant would be giving up all of these rights, there would be no trial, and Defendant would be adjudged guilty just as if Defendant had gone to trial and a jury returned a guilty verdict against Defendant.

• Plea Agreement

I determined that Defendant was not pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement.

• Elements of Crimes and Factual Basis

I summarized the charges against Defendant and listed the elements of the crimes charged. I determined that Defendant understood each and every element of the crimes, and Defendant's counsel confirmed that Defendant understood each and every element of the crimes charged. For the offenses to which Defendant was pleading guilty, I elicited a full and complete factual basis for all elements of the crimes charged in the Indictment. Defendant's attorney indicated that the offenses to which Defendant was pleading guilty were factually supported.

• Sentencing

I explained to Defendant that the district judge will determine the appropriate sentence at the sentencing hearing. I explained that the Court will use the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines to calculate Defendant's sentence. I explained that the sentence imposed might be different from what the advisory guidelines suggest it should be and may be different from what Defendant's attorney had estimated.

I explained that a probation officer will prepare a written presentence investigation report and that Defendant and Defendant's counsel will have an opportunity to read the presentence report before the sentencing hearing and will have the opportunity to object to the contents of the report. I further explained that Defendant and Defendant's counsel will be afforded the opportunity to present evidence and be heard at the sentencing hearing.

I also explained that if the mandatory minimum sentence applies, the sentencing judge cannot sentence Defendant to a sentence below fifteen years in prison on Count 2, which is the statutory mandatory minimum, even if the judge wants to.

I advised Defendant of the consequences of the guilty plea, including the possibility of a mandatory minimum sentence, the maximum term of imprisonment, the maximum term of supervised release, and the maximum fine. Specifically, I advised Defendant that Count 1 of the Indictment the following maximum penalties: (1) not more than five years in prison without the possibility of parole; (2) a period of supervised release following prison of not more than three years; (3) a fine of not more than $250,000; and (4) a mandatory special assessment of $100. I also advised Defendant that Count 2 of the Indictment is punishable by the following maximum penalties: (1) not more than ten years in prison without the possibility of parole; (2) a period of supervised release following prison of not more than three years; (3) a fine of not more than $250,000; and (4) a mandatory special assessment of $100. I further advised Defendant that if the Court finds Defendant has three previous convictions for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both, committed on occasions different from one another, then pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 924(e)(1), Count 2 of the Indictment is punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years in prison and the following maximum penalties: (1) not more than life in prison without the possibility of parole; (2) a period of supervised release following prison of not more than five years; (3) a fine of not more than $250,000; and (4) a mandatory special assessment of $100.

I further advised Defendant that because there are multiple counts, the sentences could be run consecutively for a maximum sentence of fifteen years in prison, a $500,000 fine, $200 in special assessments, and a life time of supervised release. I also advised Defendant that he may be required to pay restitution. I advised Defendant of the collateral consequences of pleading guilty. Defendant acknowledged understanding all of the above consequences.

I explained that the Court will impose conditions of supervised release, which will include not reentering the United States, and that if Defendant violates a condition of supervised release, then the Court could revoke Defendant's supervised release and require Defendant to serve all or part of the term of supervised release in prison, without credit for time previously served on supervised release. I also advised Defendant that if he is charged and convicted of another crime in relation to illegal reentry into the United States, the sentence in that case could be ordered to be served consecutive to any sentence imposed in this case if the judge revokes Defendant's supervised release.

• Removal

I advised Defendant that because Defendant is not a United States citizen, it is likely Defendant will be deported from the United States after serving any prison sentence imposed. I also advised Defendant that this conviction may affect Defendant's ability to ever lawfully reenter the United States or to become a U.S. citizen, and could subject Defendant to other immigration consequences.

I also explained that both the Government and Defendant have the right to appeal Defendant's sentence.

Defendant confirmed that the decision to plead guilty was voluntary; was not the result of any promises; and was not the result of anyone threatening, forcing, or pressuring Defendant to plead guilty. I explained that after the district judge accepts Defendant's guilty pleas, Defendant will have no right to withdraw the pleas at a later date, even if the sentence imposed is different from what Defendant anticipated.

Defendant confirmed that Defendant still wished to plead guilty, and Defendant pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment. I find the following with respect to the guilty pleas:

1. Defendant's pleas are voluntary; knowing; not the result of force, threats or promise; and Defendant is fully competent.

2. Defendant is aware of the minimum and maximum punishment for the counts to which Defendant pleaded guilty.

3. Defendant knows of and voluntarily waived Defendant's jury trial rights.

4. There is a factual basis for the pleas.

5. Defendant is guilty of the crimes to which Defendant pleaded guilty.

• Forfeiture

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(1), I found that the Government had established the requisite nexus between Defendant's offense and the items described in the Indictment's forfeiture allegation, specifically a Smith and Wesson 3rd Model, Safety Hammerless .32 caliber revolver. I recommend the Court enter a preliminary forfeiture order pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2).

I explained that the Parties have fourteen (14) days from the filing of this Report and Recommendation to file any objections to my findings, and that if no objections are made, then the district judge may accept Defendant's guilty pleas by simply entering a written order doing so. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b). But see, United States v. Cortez-Hernandez, 673 Fed. App'x 587, 590-91 (8th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (suggesting that a Defendant may have the right to de novo review of a magistrate judge's recommendation to accept a plea of guilty even if no objection is filed). The district court judge will undertake a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation if a written request for such review is filed within fourteen (14) days after this Report and Recommendation is filed. DONE AND ENTERED at Cedar Rapids, Iowa, this 29th day of January, 2020.

/s/_________

Mark A. Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge

Northern District of Iowa


Summaries of

United States v. Quinto-Pascual

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION
Jan 29, 2020
No. 19-cr-2042-CJW (N.D. Iowa Jan. 29, 2020)
Case details for

United States v. Quinto-Pascual

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALBERTO QUINTO-PASCUAL, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION

Date published: Jan 29, 2020

Citations

No. 19-cr-2042-CJW (N.D. Iowa Jan. 29, 2020)