From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Canfield

United States District Court, Western District of Missouri
Mar 1, 2022
2:20-CR-04044-BCW-01 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 1, 2022)

Opinion

2:20-CR-04044-BCW-01

03-01-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DOUGLAS HOWARD CANFIELD Defendant.


REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

Willie J. Epps, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge

The defendant, by consent, appeared before the undersigned on March 1, 2022, and pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Local Rule 72(c)(1)(j), and 28 U.S.C. § 636, has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment. After cautioning and examining the defendant, under oath, in accordance with the requirements of Rule 11, it was determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary, and that the offense to which the defendant has plead guilty is supported by a factual basis for each of the essential elements of the offense.

For the proceeding, the prosecutor and judge appeared in person. The defendant appeared in person and in custody of the U.S. Marshal. Defense counsel, Mark Hammer, appeared by video teleconference. Defense counsel requested to proceed by video teleconference. The defendant expressly consented to defense counsel appearing by video teleconference. An offer was made to set up a breakout room for the defendant and his counsel, if requested. I confirmed the defendant could see and hear me and the lawyers clearly.

I proceeded without defense counsel physically present because, during the national emergency created by the novel coronavirus, he could not be physically present without seriously jeopardizing public health and safety. See the Court's Superseding General Order (implementing Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748 [“CARES Act”], and action by Judicial Conference authorizing video teleconferencing under certain circumstances). I did not postpone the plea because the defendant and his lawyer contended, and I found, delay of the plea would cause serious harm to the interests of justice.

IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that the plea of guilty be accepted and that the defendant be adjudged guilty and have a sentence imposed accordingly.

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its filing will bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).


Summaries of

United States v. Canfield

United States District Court, Western District of Missouri
Mar 1, 2022
2:20-CR-04044-BCW-01 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 1, 2022)
Case details for

United States v. Canfield

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DOUGLAS HOWARD CANFIELD Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Missouri

Date published: Mar 1, 2022

Citations

2:20-CR-04044-BCW-01 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 1, 2022)