Opinion
CASE NO. 03-80244
07-26-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. D-24 JULIO CESAR LAMADRID, Defendant.
Hon. Victoria A. Roberts
REPORT , FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING DEFENDANT'S GUILTY PLEA
I. REPORT AND FINDINGS
On November 9, 2005, Defendant Julio Cesar Lamadrid ("Lamadrid") was charged in a sixth superseding indictment with Conspiracy to Distribute More than 1000 Kilograms of Marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 (Count One), Conspiracy to Import More than 1000 Kilograms of Marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960, and 963 (Count Two). (Doc. #394). Lamadrid was arraigned on October 20, 2017, and consented to pretrial detention.
Lamadrid and the government ultimately entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which he agreed to plead guilty to Count I of the sixth superseding indictment. (Doc. #926). Lamadrid consented to permit the undersigned conduct a plea hearing according to the procedures outlined in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the matter was referred. (Docs. #919, #925).
Lamadrid and his counsel appeared before me in duty court on July 16, 2019, and, pursuant to a Rule 11 Plea Agreement, Lamadrid plead guilty to Count One of the sixth superseding indictment - Conspiracy to Distribute More than 1000 Kilograms of Marijuana, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. In open court, I examined Lamadrid under oath, and advised and questioned him regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Based upon Lamadrid's answers and demeanor at the plea hearing, I HEREBY FIND that: (1) Lamadrid is competent to enter a plea; (2) Lamadrid's plea is entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, without coercion; and (3) the offense to which Lamadrid plead guilty is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense. Therefore, I have ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.
II. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, subject to the Court's consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Lamadrid's guilty plea be accepted, Lamadrid be adjudged guilty of the offense charged, and that the Court impose the sentence it determines is appropriate. Dated: July 26, 2019
Ann Arbor, Michigan
s/David R. Grand
DAVID R. GRAND
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report, Findings, and Recommendation, any party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations set forth above. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(1). Failure to timely file objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, (1985); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). Only specific objections to this Report, Findings, and Recommendation will be preserved for the Court's appellate review; raising some objections but not others will not preserve all objections a party may have. See Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987); see also Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596-97 (6th Cir. 2006). Copies of any objections must be served upon the Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).
A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Any such response should be concise, and should address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue presented in the objections.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 26, 2019.
s/Eddrey O. Butts
EDDREY O. BUTTS
Case Manager