United States v. Lopez

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CARLOS LOPEZ, JR. (15),

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division

Date published: Apr 27, 2022

Facts

On April 26, 2022, this case came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for entry of a guilty plea by Defendant, Carlos Lopez, Jr., to Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment. Count One alleges sometime on or about September 2014, in the Eastern District of Texas, Defendant, Carlos Lopez, Jr., did knowingly and intentionally committed the offense of Conspiracy to Possess with the Intent to Distribute Cocaine, Heroin, and Marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.

The defendant entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment into the record at the hearing. After conducting the proceeding in the form and manner prescribed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the undersigned finds:

a. Defendant, after consultation with his attorney, has knowingly, freely, and voluntarily consented to the administration of the guilty plea in this case by the United States

Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Texas subject to final approval and imposition of sentence by the District Court;

b. Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, Defendant is aware of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea, and the plea of guilty is made freely, knowingly, and voluntarily. Upon addressing Defendant personally in open court, the undersigned determines that Defendant’s plea is knowing and voluntary and did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than the promises set forth in the plea agreement). See Fed. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(2); and c. Defendant’s knowing and voluntary plea is supported by an independent factual basis establishing each of the essential elements of the offense and Defendant realizes that his conduct falls within the definition of the crime charged under 21 U.S.C. § 846.

Issue

Decision

IT IS THEREFORE the recommendation of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge that the District Court accept the Guilty Plea of Defendant, which the undersigned determines to be supported by an independent factual basis establishing each of the essential elements of the offense charged in Count One of the Second Superseding Indictment. Accordingly, it is further recommended that Carlos Lopez, Jr., be finally adjudged guilty of the charged offense under Title 21 U.S.C. § 846.

The defendant is ordered to report to the United States Probation Department for the preparation of a presentence report. The defendant has the right to allocate before the District Court before the imposition of sentence.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), each party to this action has the right to file objections to this report and recommendation. Objections to this report must: (1) be in writing, (2) specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, and (3) be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report, and (4) be no more than eight (8) pages in length. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) (2009); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); Local Rule CV-72(c). A party who objects to this report is entitled to a de novo determination by the United States District Judge of those proposed findings and recommendations to which a specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2009); Fed R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

A party’s failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of this report, bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States District Judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276 77 (5th Cir. 1988),  and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States District Judge, see Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

So Ordered.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

13 + twelve =