United States v. Rivera-Rodriguez, 3:16-cr-00086

Samuel Rivera Rodriguez was indicted (first superseding) and agreed to plead guilty to Count Six (possession with intent to distribute ≥28 grams of cocaine base) and Count Nine (possession of a 9mm pistol and ammunition in furtherance of a drug-trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)).
The plea hearing was conducted on February 24, 2020, before Magistrate Judge Marshal D. Morgan with the defendant’s written consent to proceed before a magistrate under Rule 11 and waiver of a jury trial.
The magistrate questioned Rivera Rodriguez about age, education, mental health, counsel, and understanding of the proceedings and received assurances from defense and government counsel that he was competent to plead.
The court reviewed the plea agreement (Rule 11(c)(1)(B) recommendation), warned that the district judge could reject the recommendation without allowing withdrawal, and confirmed the defendant’s understanding of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, statutory maximum penalties, supervised release, and collateral consequences.
Rivera Rodriguez admitted the factual basis for Counts Six and Nine, acknowledged waiver of constitutional trial rights, affirmed the plea was voluntary and not the result of promises or threats, and signed the plea documents.
The magistrate found the plea competent, knowing, and voluntary, recommended acceptance of the guilty plea as to Counts Six and Nine, and set sentencing for June 26, 2020.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency to plead	Rivera Rodriguez is mentally and legally competent to enter a plea	Defendant represented he understood proceedings and counsel affirmed competence	Magistrate found defendant competent to enter guilty plea
Voluntariness / absence of coercion	Plea was voluntary, no threats or improper promises induced plea	Defendant confirmed plea was voluntary and not coerced	Court accepted plea as voluntary and intelligent
Understanding of charges and consequences	Defendant understood elements, statutory maxima, supervised release, and collateral consequences	Defendant acknowledged understanding of charges, penalties, and rights forfeited by pleading guilty	Court found defendant understood charges and consequences
Effect of Rule 11(c)(1)(B) plea and appellate waiver	Plea agreement is a recommendation; court may reject it; defendant waived appeal if court adopts plea	Defendant acknowledged understanding and accepted potential court rejection and appellate waiver	Court admonished defendant, confirmed understanding, and recommended acceptance of plea

United States v. Woodard, 387 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2004) (magistrate judge may conduct Rule 11 guilty plea hearing with defendant's consent)
United States v. Hernandez-Wilson, 186 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999) (Rule 11 requires guilty plea be knowing and voluntary)
United States v. Cotal-Crespo, 47 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995) (Rule 11 core concerns: coercion, understanding of charges, knowledge of consequences)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) (defendant must understand nature of charge and consequences to plead guilty)
United States v. Allard, 926 F.2d 1237 (1st Cir. 1991) (Rule 11 standards discussed)
United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986) (failure to timely object to magistrate recommendation waives right to district court review)