United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge.
order of the District Court, this matter is referred to the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for administration
of the guilty plea under Rule 11. 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).
November 16, 2017, this case came before the undersigned
magistrate judge for entry of a guilty plea by the Defendant,
Daniel Alejandro Gonzalez, to Count Two of the Indictment.
Count Two alleges that on or about April 25, 2017, in the
Eastern District of Texas, Daniel Alejandro Gonzalez did
knowingly and intentionally, in a matter other than simple
assault, forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, and
interfere with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Deportation Officer Daniel Zaragoza, an employee of the
United States as designated in 18 U.S.C. § 114, while
the officer was engaged in the performance of his official
duties, by resisting, opposing, impeding, and interfering
with the custody and transportation of the defendant by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Deportation Officer
Daniel Zaragoza, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
111(a)(1) (Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding an Employee of
the United States).
Defendant 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 undersigned finds:
the Defendant, after consultation with his attorney, has
knowingly, freely and voluntarily consented to the
administration of the guilty plea in this case by a United
States Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Texas,
subject to a final approval and imposition of sentence by the
the 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. The Defendant
verified that he understood the terms of the plea agreement,
and he acknowledged that it was his signature on the plea
agreement. To the extent the plea agreement contains
recommendations and requests pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
(c)(1)(B), the court advised the Defendant that he has no
right to withdraw the plea if the court does not follow the
particular recommendations or requests. To the extent that
any or all of the terms of the plea agreement are pursuant to
Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the undersigned advised the
Defendant that he will have the opportunity to withdraw his
plea of guilty should the court not follow those particular
terms of the plea agreement.
the Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an
informed plea, that the Defendant is aware of the nature of
the charges and the consequences of the plea, and that the
plea of guilty is made freely, knowingly, and voluntarily.
Upon addressing the Defendant personally in open court, the
undersigned determines that the 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).
the Defendant's knowing and voluntary plea is supported
by an independent factual basis establishing each of the
essential elements of the offense and the Defendant realizes
that his conduct falls within the definition of the crime
charged under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) (Assaulting,
Resisting, or Impeding an Employee of the United States).
factual support for the Defendant's guilty plea, the
Government presented a factual basis. See Factual
Basis and Stipulation. In support, the Government would prove
that the Defendant is the same person charged in the
Indictment, and that the events described in the Indictment
occurred in the Eastern District of Texas. The Government
would also have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, each and
every essential element of the offense as alleged in Count
Two of the Indictment through the testimony of witnesses,
including expert witnesses, and admissible exhibits. In
support of the Defendant's plea, the undersigned
incorporates the proffer of evidence described in detail in
the factual basis and stipulation filed in support of the
plea agreement, and the Defendant's admissions made in
open court in response to the undersigned's further
inquiry into the factual basis and stipulation.
Defendant agreed with and stipulated to the evidence
presented in the factual basis. Counsel for the Defendant and
the Government attested to the 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 the guilty plea
knowingly, freely and voluntarily.
IS THEREFORE the recommendation of the undersigned
United States Magistrate Judge that the District Court accept
the Guilty Plea of the 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 Indictment. Accordingly, it is
further recommended that the District Court finally adjudge
the Defendant, Daniel Alejandro Gonzalez, guilty of the
charged offense under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1) (Assaulting,
Resisting, or Impeding an Employee of the United States).
District Court should defer its decision to accept or reject
the plea agreement until there has been an opportunity to
review the presentence report. If the plea agreement is
rejected and the Defendant still persists in his guilty plea,
the disposition of the case may be less favorable to the
Defendant than that contemplated by the plea agreement. The
Defendant is ordered to report to the United States Probation
Department for the ...