Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 2:13-CR-768-2
2013-10-21
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ERICA HERNANDEZ
ORDER ACCEPTING GUILTY PLEA
Now before the Court is the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby containing his recommendation (1) that this Court adopt his findings that the Defendant's guilty plea in the above-styled and numbered cause was knowingly and voluntarily entered, with a full understanding of the consequences of the plea and the constitutional rights being waived, and that the plea was supported by an adequate basis in fact; (2) that the Court accept the Defendant's guilty plea; and (3) that the Court adjudge the Defendant guilty of the offense charged in Count One of the Indictment. (D.E. 31.)
On September 30, 2013, the Magistrate Judge, by designation and referral of this Court (pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and this Court's standing order of referral) and with the consent of the parties, conducted the re-arraignment and guilty plea colloquy of the Defendant, Erica Hernandez. The Indictment charged the Defendant with having committed the following offense:
On or about August 5, 2013, in the Corpus Christi Division of the Southern District of Texas and elsewhere within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Defendants
Crystal Deann Azua and
Erica Hernandez,
knowingly and in reckless disregard of the fact that aliens had come to, entered, and remained in the United States in violation of law, did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree together, with each other, and with other persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to transport, move, attempt to transport, and attempt to move said aliens within the United States in furtherance of such violation of law by means of a motor vehicle.(D.E. 14.) After being placed under oath and advised of the charge against her, as well as her right to a jury trial and the consequences of entering a plea of guilty, the Defendant entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment.
In violation of Title 8, United States Code, Sections 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I), and 1324(a)(1)(B)(i).
More than fourteen days have passed since the parties, respectively, were served with the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, and no party has filed objections. The Court regards such omission as the parties' agreement with and acceptance of the Magistrate Judge's findings. When no timely objection to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendation is filed, the district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record and accept the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation. Guillory v. PPG Industries, Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996)); United States v. Rivas, 85 F.3d 193, 194 (5th Cir. 1996).
In the case at hand, the Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and that there is no clear error. Furthermore, the Court finds that the Defendant, Erica Hernandez is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea; that she is aware of the nature of the charge made against her, the consequences of her plea, and the nature of the constitutional rights that she is waiving; that her plea of guilty is a knowing and voluntary plea that did not result from force, threats, or promises (other than promises in a plea agreement); and that it is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense with which she is charged.
THEREFORE, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's findings as its own, ACCEPTS Defendant's plea of guilty, and ADJUDGES the Defendant, Erica Hernandez, guilty as charged in Count One of the Indictment.
________________
NELVA GONZALES RAMOS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE