United States v. Rodriguez-Castro

1:05-cr-00649 | S.D. Tex. | Sep 9, 2005


- B ROWNSVILLE D IVISION - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § § VS. § CRIMINAL NO. B-05-649 § JULIO CESAR RODRIGUEZ-CASTRO § REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The Magistrate Court submits this Report and Recommendation to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). This case has been referred, pursuant to General Order No. 05- 001, to the United States Magistrate Judge for the taking of a felony guilty plea and the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 11 Allocution. All parties executed a waiver of the right to plead guilty before a United States District Judge as well as a consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.

On September 9, 2005, the defendant and counsel appeared before the Magistrate Judge, who addressed the defendant personally in open court and informed the defendant of the admonishments under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Magistrate Judge determined that the defendant was competent to plead guilty and fully understood said admonishments.

The defendant agreed to plead guilty to the Indictment (violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and 1326(b)(1)). No plea agreement was entered. The Court explained to the defendant that he would be subject to sentencing pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission. The Court also explained that parole had been abolished and that the defendant could receive a term of supervised release. The Court explained the range of punishment with regard to imprisonment, fines, restitution, supervised release, and the statutory fee assessment pursuant to the Victim of Crime Act.

The Magistrate Judge finds the following: 1) The defendant, with the advice of his attorney, has consented orally and in writing to

enter this guilty plea before the Magistrate Judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the District Judge;

2) The defendant fully understands the nature of the charges and penalties; 3) The defendant understands his constitutional and statutory rights and wishes to waive

these rights; 4) The defendant’s plea is made freely and voluntarily; 5) The defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; and 6) There is an adequate factual basis for this plea.


The Magistrate Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court accept the plea of guilty and, after reviewing the presentence investigation report, enter final judgment of guilt against the defendant.


The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n , 834 F.2d 419" date_filed="1987-07-10" court="5th Cir." case_name="Bobby Battle v. U.S. Parole Commission">834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).

A parties failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained within this Report within 10 (ten) days after being served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings and recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court to which no objections were filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140" date_filed="1986-01-27" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Thomas v. Arn">474 U.S. 140, 150-153, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472-74 (1985); Douglas v. United Services’ Automobile Ass’n , 79 F.3d 1415" date_filed="1996-03-28" court="5th Cir." case_name="Paul W. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association">79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. en banc 1996).

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to all parties. SIGNED this 9 th day of September, 2005.

John Wm. Black United States Magistrate Judge