United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
F. GIBLIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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 June
13, 2019, this cause came before the undersigned United
States Magistrate Judge for entry of a guilty plea by the
defendant, Anthony James Madrid, on
Counts One and Two of the charging
First Superseding Indictment filed in this
One of the First Superseding Indictment charges that from on
or about, January 24, 2019, in the Eastern District of Texas,
the defendant, Anthony James Madrid, did knowingly and
intentionally possess with intent to distribute five hundred
(500) grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a
detectable amount of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled
substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Two of the First Superseding Indictment charges that on or
about January 24, 2019, in the Eastern District of Texas, the
defendant, herein, Anthony James Madrid, did knowingly
discharge, carry and use a firearm, that is a Century Arms,
Model C39V2, 7.62 caliber rifle bearing serial number
C39V2A24729, during and in relation to a drug trafficking
crime, for which the defendant may be prosecuted in a court
of the United States, that is, possession with intent to
distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), as set forth in Count One of this
Indictment, which is re-alleged here and incorporated by
reference as set forth in full, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
Anthony James Madrid, entered a plea of guilty to Counts One
and Two of the First Superseding Indictment into the record
at the hearing.
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
b. That Defendant and the Government have entered into a plea
agreement and a plea agreement addendum which were addressed
in open court and entered into the record.
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 crimes charged under 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
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, as well as through admissible exhibits, each and
every essential element of the crime charged in Counts One
and Two of the First Superseding Indictment. The Government
would also prove that the defendant is one and the same
person charged in the First Superseding Indictment and that
the events described in First Superseding Indictment occurred
in the Eastern District of Texas and elsewhere. The Court
incorporates the proffer of evidence described in detail in
the factual basis and stipulation in support of the guilty
Anthony James Madrid, 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.