United States v. Carrillo
1:21-cr-00071
E.D. Tex.Jul 13, 2021Background
- Defendant Jose Luis Carrillo pleaded guilty to Count One of an Information alleging that on or about September 21, 2017 he knowingly made materially false statements in a FEMA application to obtain disaster benefits for damage to 5236 Luis Drive, Port Arthur, Texas, in connection with FEMA-4332-DR, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1040.
- The guilty plea was entered on July 13, 2021 before a United States Magistrate Judge under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, pursuant to authority in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3); a plea agreement was disclosed on the record and placed under seal.
- The magistrate conducted the Rule 11 colloquy, found Carrillo competent, and concluded the plea was knowing, voluntary, and not the product of force, threats, or promises (other than those in the plea agreement).
- The Government proffered a factual basis and exhibits; Carrillo stipulated to that factual basis and made admissions in open court supporting each element of the § 1040 offense.
- The magistrate recommended the District Court accept the guilty plea, defer decision on acceptance/rejection of the plea agreement until review of the presentence report, ordered preparation of a PSI, and noted the defendant's right to allocute and the parties’ right to file objections within 14 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Magistrate authority to administer felony guilty plea | Magistrate may conduct Rule 11 plea proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and controlling precedent | Carrillo consented to magistrate administration of the plea | Magistrate properly conducted the plea proceeding and issued recommendations to the District Court |
| Whether plea was knowing and voluntary | Plea was knowing and voluntary after consultation with counsel and Rule 11 colloquy | Carrillo affirmed plea was made knowingly, freely, and voluntarily | Court found the plea competent, knowing, and voluntary |
| Whether factual basis supports each element of § 1040 | Government proffered evidence and witnesses to prove each offense element beyond a reasonable doubt | Carrillo stipulated to the factual basis and admitted the conduct in open court | Magistrate concluded an independent factual basis exists supporting each essential element |
| Procedure on plea-agreement acceptance and consequences if rejected | Government asked court to defer acceptance of plea agreement until presentence report and follow Rule 11 procedures | Carrillo acknowledged plea-agreement terms and understood withdrawal consequences if court does not follow certain terms | Recommended District Court defer ruling on the plea agreement pending PSI; warned that rejection could allow withdrawal or result in a less favorable disposition |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bolivar-Munoz, 313 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2002) (magistrate judges authorized to preside over felony guilty-plea proceedings under § 636(b)(3))
- Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1988) (failure to timely object to a magistrate judge’s report bars de novo review)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (failure to file specific objections to a magistrate’s report waives appellate review except for plain error)