FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
KEITH F. GIBLIN, Magistrate Judge.
By order of the District Court, this matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for administration of a guilty plea and allocution under Rules 11 and 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Magistrate judges have the statutory authority to conduct a felony guilty plea proceeding as an "additional duty" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). United States v. Bolivar-Munoz, 313 F.3d 253, 255 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S.Ct. 1642 (2003).
On December 11, 2013, this cause came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for entry of a guilty plea by the defendant, Maximino Garcia, on Count Two of the charging Indictment filed in this cause. Count Two of the Indictment charges that from on or about January 1, 2006, to on or about June 18, 2012, in the Eastern District of Texas and elsewhere, Maximino L. Garcia and several other named co-defendants, did knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully conspire, combine, confederate, and agree with others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit offenses against the United States, that is, to conduct and attempt to conduct financial transactions affecting interstate and foreign commerce, which involved the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity, to wit: conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five (5) kilograms of more of a Schedule II controlled substance, namely cocaine HCL, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, knowing that the property involved represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, with the intent to conceal and disguise the nature, source, or ownership of such proceeds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), said financial transactions being the receiving of or attempting to receive and the delivery or attempted delivery of a bulk money shipments of United States currency received from purchasers of cocaine HCL provided by the Lamas drug trafficking organization for the purpose of delivery to co-conspirators in the Southern District of Texas via transportation of the tainted proceeds through the Eastern District of Texas, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(h).
Defendant, Maximino L. Garcia, entered a plea of guilty to Count Two of the 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 Court finds:
a. That Defendant, after consultation with counsel of record, has knowingly, freely and voluntarily consented to the administration of the guilty plea in this cause by a United States Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Texas subject to a final approval and imposition of sentence by the District Court.
b. That Defendant and the Government have entered into a plea agreement which was disclosed and addressed in open court, entered into the record, and placed under seal.
c. That Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that Defendant is aware of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea, and that the plea of guilty is a knowing, voluntary and freely made plea. Upon addressing the Defendant personally in open court, the Court determines that Defendant's plea is voluntary and did not result from force, threats or promises. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(2).
d. That Defendant's knowing, voluntary and freely made 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 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).
STATEMENT OF REASONS
As factual support for Defendant's guilty plea, the Government presented a factual basis. See Factual Basis and Stipulation. In support, the Government and Defendant stipulated that if this case were to proceed to trial the Government would prove beyond a reasonable doubt, through the sworn testimony of witnesses, including expert witnesses, and through admissible exhibits, each and every essential element of the crime charged in Count Two of the Indictment. The parties also stipulated that the Government would prove that the defendant is one and the same person charged in Count Two of the Indictment and that the events described in the Indictment occurred in the Eastern District of Texas. The Court incorporates the proffer of evidence described in detail in the factual basis in support of the guilty plea.
Defendant, Maximino L Garcia agreed with and stipulated to the evidence presented in the factual basis. Counsel for Defendant and the Government attested to Defendant's competency and capability to enter an informed plea of guilty. The Defendant agreed with the evidence presented by the Government and personally testified that he was entering his guilty plea knowingly, freely and voluntarily.
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 Two of the charging Indictment on file in this criminal proceeding. The Court also recommends that the District Court accept the plea agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c). Accordingly, it is further recommended ...