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. Jiles

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division

July 30, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DMARCUS JAMIL JILES

          FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          Zack Hawthorn United States Magistrate Judge

         By 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).

         On July 30, 2019, this case came before the undersigned magistrate judge for entry of a guilty plea by the Defendant, Dmarcus Jamil Jiles, to Counts One, Two, Three, Five, Six, and Seven of the Indictment. Count One alleges that on or about April 13, 2018, in the Eastern District of Texas, Dmarcus Jamil Jiles, the Defendant herein, by force, violence, and intimidation did take or attempt to take from the person or presence of another money, namely United States currency, belonging to and in the care, custody, control, management, and possession of the Commercial Bank of Texas, in Diboll, Texas, a bank whose deposits were then insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2113(a).

         Count Two alleges that on or about April 20, 2018, in the Eastern District of Texas, Dmarcus Jamil Jiles, the Defendant herein, by force, violence, and intimidation did take or attempt to take from the person or presence of another money, namely United States currency, belonging to and in the care, custody, control, management, and possession of the BBVA Compass Bank, in Broaddus, Texas, a bank whose deposits were then insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2113(a).

         Count Three alleges that on or about May 25, 2018, in the Eastern District of Texas, Dmarcus Jamil Jiles, the Defendant herein, by force, violence, and intimidation did take or attempt to take from the person or presence of another money, namely United States currency, belonging to and in the care, custody, control, management, and possession of the BancorpSouth Bank, in Alto, Texas, a bank whose deposits were then insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and that the Defendant put in jeopardy the life of some person by the use of a dangerous weapon or device, that is, a firearm, while engaged in the taking of the currency, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2113(a) and (d).

         Count Five alleges that on or about July 4, 2018, in the Eastern District of Texas, Dmarcus Jamil Jiles, the Defendant herein, did unlawfully obstruct, delay, and affect commerce as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and the movement of articles and commodities in commerce, by robbery, as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. §1951, in that the Defendant did unlawfully take personal property consisting of United States currency belonging to the Hampton Inn located in Livingston, Texas, from the presence of an employee against her will by means of actual and threatened force, violence, and fear of immediate and future injury to her person, while the employee engaged in commercial activities as an employee of the Hampton Inn, a business that was engaged in and affects interstate commerce, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951.

         Count Six alleges that on or about July 4, 2018, in the Eastern District of Texas, Dmarcus Jamil Jiles, the Defendant herein, did knowingly and intentionally use, carry, possess, and brandish a firearm, to wit: a handgun, during and in relation to and in furtherance of a crime of violence for which he may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, that is interference with commerce by threats or violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, as alleged in Count Five, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, § 924(c).

         Count Seven alleges that on or about July 10, 2018, in the Eastern District of Texas, Dmarcus Jamil Jiles, the Defendant herein, by force, violence, and intimidation did attempt to take from the person or presence of another money, namely United States currency, belonging to and in the care, custody, control, management, and possession of the Commercial Bank of Texas, in Kennard, Texas, a bank whose deposits were then insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2113(a).

         The Defendant entered a plea of guilty to Counts One, Two, Three, Five, Six, and Seven 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:

         a. That 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 District Court.

         b. That 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.[1]

         c. That 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).

         d. That 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 crimes charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) - Bank Robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 - Hobbs Act Robbery, and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) - Use, carrying and Possession of Firearms and Ammunition During and in Furtherance of a Violent Crime.

         STATEMENT ...


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.