Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Reddick

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Corpus Christi Division

April 28, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
HENRY FRANKLIN REDDICK

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANT'S CONDITIONAL PLEA OF GUILTY

          Jason B. Libby, United States Magistrate Judge

         United States District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos referred this case to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for the purpose of conducting a guilty plea proceeding pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The undersigned submits these Findings and Recommendation to the District Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). All parties have waived the right to plead before a United States District Judge, and additionally, have consented to proceed before the undersigned.

         On April 28, 2017, the defendant appeared with counsel before the undersigned Magistrate Judge and pleaded guilty to Count 1 of the indictment pursuant to a written plea agreement. The defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2) reserving his right to seek appellate review of the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. If the defendant prevails on appeal, Rule 11 would allow the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty. Assistant United States Attorney Hugo Martinez consented to the defendant entering a conditional plea. However, the consent of the United States District Judge is also required to accept this conditional plea of guilty.

         If the Court accepts and adopts this recommendation, the Defendant's plea of guilty is conditional and he will be allowed to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress.

         The defendant was personally addressed in open court and admonished pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as follows:

         1. The defendant was placed under oath and advised that any false answers given during the plea proceeding could be used by the United States against the defendant in a prosecution for perjury or for making a false statement.

         2. The defendant was advised that Count One of the indictment charged him with knowingly possessing and accessing with the intent to view child pornography involving an image of a prepubescent child engaged in sexually explicit conduct that was produced using materials that had been shipped or transported in interstate and foreign commerce by any means, including a computer in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2252A(a)(5)(B) and 2252A(b)(2).[1]

         3. The defendant was advised of the defendant's right to a jury trial, the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to require that the United States prove each of the elements of the offense to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant was further advised that the right to a jury trial included the right to see, hear and cross-examine witnesses, the right to compel witnesses to appear on the defendant's behalf, and the right to testify on the defendant's behalf or to remain silent. The defendant was advised that a plea of guilty would waive the right to a jury trial, the right to see, hear and cross examine witnesses, the right to compel witnesses to appear in the defendant's behalf, and the right to remain silent.

         4. The defendant was advised that the United States must prove the following elements of the offense: (1) That the defendant knowingly possessed an item that contains an image of child pornography; (2) That the material was produced using materials that had been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer; (3) That when the defendant possessed the material, the defendant knew the material was child pornography; and (4) that the image depicted a prepubescent minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

         5. The defendant was advised that the maximum possible sentence included a prison term of up to twenty years plus a maximum fine of up to $250, 000, a mandatory $100 special assessment and a period of supervised release of not less than five years, up to lifetime supervision, and that any violation of supervised release could result in an additional prison term of up to a maximum of five years.

         The defendant also was advised that even if he received the maximum five year sentence for violation of supervised release, if he had not completed his full term of supervised release, he could be re-released to supervised release, and if revoked again he could receive up to the maximum revocation sentence again. The defendant was advised that this could happen multiple times until he had completed serving his term of supervised release.

         The defendant was further advised a non-indigent person convicted of the instant offense will be assessed an additional $5, 000 assessment. See the “Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015”, Pub. L. No. 114-22.

         The defendant was further advised that he may have to pay restitution pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2259.

         6. The defendant was advised of the District Court's obligation to calculate the applicable advisory sentencing guideline range and to consider that advisory range, possible departures and variances under the Sentencing Guidelines, and other sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The defendant further stated that he understood and had ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.