Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 1:22-CR-65-1
11-29-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL D. ALLEN, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY
MICHAEL JOHN ALOI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge by the District Court for purposes of considering the record, the Information, and the proposed plea agreement in this matter, and conducting a hearing and entering into the record a written report and recommendation memorializing the disposition of Defendant's guilty plea, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Defendant, Michael D. Allen, in person and by counsel, Lance E. Rollo, appeared before me on November 7, 2022 for an Initial Appearance, Arraignment, and Plea Hearing to an Information. The Government appeared by Assistant United States Attorney, Christopher L. Bauer.
During the hearing, the Court gave notice to the Government's attorney that pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act of 2020, the Court reminds counsel that under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, failing to disclose favorable evidence to the accused violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or punishment. Further, the Court noted that consequences for a Brady violation can include, but are not necessarily limited to, a vacated conviction and disciplinary actions against the prosecutor. The Court gave written notice to this effect to counsel and ORDERED the same filed herein. [ECF No. 12].
The Court determined that Defendant was prepared to enter a plea of “Guilty” to Count One and Count Two of the Information.
The Court proceeded with the Rule 11 proceeding by first placing Defendant under oath and inquiring into Defendant's competency. The Court determined Defendant was competent to proceed with the Rule 11 plea hearing and cautioned and examined Defendant under oath concerning all matters mentioned in Rule 11.
The Court next inquired of Defendant concerning his understanding of his right to have an Article III Judge hear the entry of his guilty plea and his understanding of the difference between an Article III Judge and a Magistrate Judge. Defendant thereafter stated in open court that he voluntarily waived his right to have an Article III Judge hear his plea and voluntarily consented to the undersigned Magistrate Judge hearing his plea. Defendant tendered to the Court a written Waiver of Article III Judge and Consent to Enter Guilty Plea before Magistrate Judge. The waiver and consent was signed by Defendant, countersigned by Defendant's counsel, and concurred by the signature of the Assistant United States Attorney.
Upon consideration of the sworn testimony of Defendant, as well as the representations of his counsel and the representations of the Government, the Court finds that the oral and written waiver of an Article III Judge and consent to enter a guilty plea before a Magistrate Judge was freely and voluntarily given. Additionally, the Court finds that the written waiver and consent was freely and voluntarily executed by Defendant Michael D. Allen only after having had his rights fully explained to him and having a full understanding of those rights through consultation with his counsel, as well as through questioning by the Court. The Court ORDERED the written Waiver and Consent to Enter Guilty Plea before a Magistrate Judge filed and made part of the record. [ECF No. 16].
The Court inquired of Defendant and Defendant's Counsel as to Defendant's knowledge and understanding of Defendant's constitutional right to proceed by indictment, the voluntariness of Defendant's consent to proceed by Information and of Defendant's waiver of the right to proceed by indictment. Defendant and Defense Counsel verbally acknowledged their understanding and Defendant, under oath, acknowledged Defendant's voluntary waiver of this right to proceed by indictment and Defendant's agreement to voluntarily proceed by Information. Defendant also executed a written waiver of the same. [ECF No. 14]. The Court ORDERED the written waiver of indictment filed and made a part of the record.
Thereafter, the Court determined that Defendant's plea was pursuant to a written plea agreement and asked the Government to tender the original to the Court. The Court asked counsel for the Government if the agreement was the sole agreement offered to Defendant. The Government responded that it was, and the Defendant and Defendant's counsel agreed on the record that it was. The Court asked counsel for the Government to summarize the written plea agreement. Counsel for the Government noted an amendment was made to Paragraph 13 to strike the date September 16, 2022, and extend it to October 3, 2022, to ensure the Defendant's execution of the agreement is deemed timely. Counsel for the Government, counsel for the Defendant, and the Defendant all initialed this amendment to indicate their consent. Counsel for the Government also noted an amendment to Paragraph 19 to strike the name “Ms. Taylor” and replace it with the Defendant's name “Mr. Allen.” Counsel for the Government, counsel for the Defendant, and the Defendant all initialed this amendment to indicate their consent. Further, Counsel for the Government, counsel for the Defendant, and the Defendant all initialed an amendment made to the first page of the agreement, to indicate their consent to adding the case number “1:22-CR-65” to the first page.
Counsel for Defendant and Defendant stated that the agreement as summarized by counsel for the Government was correct and complied with their understanding of the agreement. The undersigned further inquired of Defendant regarding his understanding of the written plea agreement. Defendant stated he understood the terms of the written plea agreement and also stated that it contained the whole of his agreement with the Government and no promises or representations were made to him by the Government other than those terms contained in the written plea agreement. The Court ORDERED the written plea agreement filed and made a part of the record. [ECF No. 17].
The undersigned then reviewed with Defendant Count One of the Information and the elements the Government would have to prove, charging him in Count One of the Information with Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. [ECF No. 1]. Thereafter, the undersigned reviewed with Defendant Count Two of the Information and the elements the Government would have to prove, charging him in Count Two of the Information with Unlawful Monetary Transaction, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957. [ECF No. 1].
Subsequently, Defendant Michael D. Allen pled GUILTY to the charges contained in Count One and Count Two of the Information. However, before accepting Defendant's plea, the undersigned inquired of Defendant's understanding of the charges against him, inquired of Defendant's understanding of the consequences of him pleading guilty to the charges, and obtained the factual basis for Defendant's plea.
The Government proffered a factual basis for the plea. Counsel for the Government noted that under Paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b) of the plea agreement, the parties stipulated the factual basis for Defendant's guilty plea. Neither Defendant nor Defendant's counsel disputed the proffer nor stipulation in Paragraphs 6(a) and 6(b) when given the opportunity to do so. Defendant and Defendant's counsel agreed on the record to incorporate the stipulation for the factual basis by reference.
Additionally, Defendant provided a factual basis for the commission of the offense and agreed on the record the stipulation of facts agreed to by the parties was an accurate summary of the underlying events of the offenses. The undersigned Magistrate Judge concludes that the offense charged in Count One and Count Two of the Information are each supported by an independent basis in fact concerning each of the essential elements of such offense, and the Government's proffer provides that independent basis.
The undersigned then reviewed with Defendant the statutory penalties applicable to an individual adjudicated guilty of the charges contained in Count One of the Information and the impact of the sentencing guidelines on sentencing in general. From said review, the undersigned Magistrate Judge determined Defendant understood the nature of the charges pending against him and that the possible statutory maximum sentence which could be imposed upon his conviction or adjudication of guilty on Count One was imprisonment for a term of not more than twenty (20) years, a fine of not more than $250,000.00, and a term of supervised release of not more than three (3) years. Further, the undersigned Magistrate Judge determined Defendant understood the possible statutory maximum sentence which could be imposed upon his conviction or adjudication of guilty on Count Two was imprisonment of not more than ten (10) years, a fine of not more than $250,000.00, or alternatively, not more than twice the amount of criminally derived property involved in the transaction, and a term of supervised release of not more than three (3) years.
Defendant also understood that the Court would impose a total special mandatory assessment of two hundred dollars ($200), which must be paid before the date of sentencing.
Defendant further understood that his sentence could be increased if he had a prior firearm offense, violent felony conviction, or prior drug conviction. He also understood that he might be required by the Court to pay the costs of his incarceration, supervision, and probation.
The undersigned also inquired of Defendant whether he understood that by pleading guilty, he was forfeiting other rights such as the right to vote, right to serve on a jury, and the right to legally possess a firearm. Additionally, the undersigned asked Defendant whether he understood that if he were not a citizen of the United States, by pleading guilty to a felony charge he would be subject to deportation at the conclusion of any sentence; that he would be denied future entry into the United States; and that he would be denied citizenship if he ever applied for it. Defendant stated that he understood.
Further, the undersigned Magistrate Judge inquired of Defendant whether he understood that forfeiture was a specific penalty under this plea agreement. Specifically, the undersigned inquired whether Defendant understood that under Page 3, Paragraph 5 of the plea agreement, he agreed to forfeit a personal money judgment in the amount of $3,500,000. Defendant stated that he understood.
Further, the undersigned inquired of Defendant whether he understood that, under Page 2, Paragraph 3, of the plea agreement, the parties stipulated and agreed that the combined adjusted offense level for Count One and Count Two is a Level 24 under the sentencing guidelines. Defendant stated that he understood.
The undersigned also reviewed with Defendant his waiver of appellate and collateral attack rights. Defendant understood that he was waiving his right to appeal his conviction and sentence to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on any ground whatsoever, including those grounds set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3742. Defendant further understood that under his plea agreement, he was waiving his right to challenge his conviction and sentence in any post-conviction proceeding, including any proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant understood, however, that he was reserving the right to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct that he learned about after the plea hearing and agreed that he was unaware of any ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct in his case at this time. From the foregoing, the undersigned determined that Defendant understood his appellate rights and knowingly gave up those rights pursuant to the conditions contained in the written plea agreement.
The undersigned Magistrate Judge further examined Defendant relative to his knowledgeable and voluntary execution of the written plea agreement and determined the entry into said written plea agreement was both knowledgeable and voluntary on the part of Defendant.
The undersigned Magistrate Judge further inquired of Defendant, his counsel, and the Government as to the non-binding recommendations and stipulations contained in the written plea agreement and determined that Defendant understood, with respect to the plea agreement and to Defendant's entry of a plea of guilty to the charges contained in Count One of the Information. The undersigned Magistrate Judge informed Defendant that he would write the subject Report and Recommendation, and that a pre-sentence investigation report would be prepared for the District Court by the probation officer attending. The undersigned advised the Defendant that the District Judge would adjudicate the Defendant guilty of the charge under Count One of the Information. Only after the District Judge had an opportunity to review the pre-sentence investigation report would the District Judge make a determination as to whether to accept or reject any recommendation or stipulation contained within the plea agreement or pre-sentence report. The undersigned reiterated to Defendant that the District Judge may not agree with the recommendations or stipulations contained in the written agreement. The undersigned Magistrate Judge further advised Defendant, in accord with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, that in the event the District Court Judge refused to follow the non-binding recommendations or stipulations contained in the written plea agreement and/or sentenced him to a sentence which was different from that which he expected, he would not be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant and his counsel each acknowledged their understanding and Defendant maintained his desire to have his guilty plea accepted.
Defendant also understood that his actual sentence could not be calculated until after a pre-sentence report was prepared and a sentencing hearing conducted. The undersigned also advised, and Defendant stated that he understood, that the Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, and that, even if the District Judge did not follow the Sentencing Guidelines or sentenced him to a higher sentence than he expected, he would not have a right to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant further stated that his attorney showed him how the advisory guideline chart worked but did not promise him any specific sentence at the time of sentencing. Defendant stated that he understood his attorney could not predict or promise him what actual sentence he would receive from the sentencing judge at the sentencing hearing. Defendant understood that he waived any right to have any sentencing determinations made by a jury and for a jury determination of facts relevant to application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and consents to the application of the Guidelines, pursuant to United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). Defendant consented to a determination of facts and resolution of application of Guidelines factors by the presiding District Judge. Finally, Defendant agreed that in so doing, the presiding District Judge may use the preponderance of the evidence standard. Defendant further understood there was no parole in the federal system, but that he may be able to earn institutional good time, and that good time was not controlled by the Court, but by the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Defendant, Michael D. Allen, with the consent of his counsel, Lance E. Rollo, proceeded to enter a verbal plea of GUILTY to the charge in Count One and Count Two of the Information.
Upon consideration of all of the above, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea; Defendant is aware of and understood his right to have an Article III Judge hear and accept his plea and elected to voluntarily consent to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge hearing his plea; Defendant understood the charges against him, as to Count One and Count Two of the Information; Defendant understood the consequences of his plea of guilty, in particular the maximum statutory penalties to which he would be exposed for Count One and Count Two of the Information; Defendant made a knowing and voluntary plea of guilty to Count One and Count Two of the Information; and Defendant's plea is independently supported by the Government's proffer which provides, beyond a reasonable doubt, proof of each of the essential elements of the charges to which Defendant has pled guilty.
The undersigned Magistrate Judge therefore RECOMMENDS Defendant's plea of guilty to Count One and Count Two of the Information herein be accepted conditioned upon the Court's receipt and review of this Report and Recommendation.
The undersigned Magistrate Judge released Defendant on the terms of the Order Setting Conditions of Release [ECF No. 13].
Any party shall have fourteen days from the date of filing this Report and Recommendation within which to file with the Clerk of this Court, specific written objections, identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection. A copy of such objections should also be submitted to the United States District Judge. Objections shall not exceed ten (10) typewritten pages or twenty (20) handwritten pages, including exhibits, unless accompanied by a motion for leave to exceed the page limitations, consistent with LR PL P 12.
Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to counsel of record.