Opinion
Case No.: 1:18-CR-3-2
10-04-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHELLE ELAINE QUEEN Defendant.
(JUDGE KEELEY)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY IN FELONY CASE
This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge by the District Court for purposes of conducting proceedings pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 (Dkt. No. 280). Defendant, Michelle Elaine Queen, in person and by Counsel, William Pennington, Esq., appeared before me on October 3, 2019. The Government appeared by Assistant United States Attorney, Traci Cook. The Court determined that Defendant was prepared to enter a plea of "Guilty" to Count Seven and Count Twenty-Nine of the Indictment.
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 her understanding of her right to have an Article III Judge hear the entry of her guilty plea and her understanding of the difference between an Article III Judge and a Magistrate Judge. Defendant thereafter stated in open court that she voluntarily waived her right to have an Article III Judge hear her plea and voluntarily consented to the undersigned Magistrate Judge hearing her 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 her 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 Michelle Elaine Queen only after having had her rights fully explained to her and having a full understanding of those rights through consultation with her 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.
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 counsel for Defendant confirmed the same. The Court asked counsel for the Government to summarize the written plea agreement. 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 her understanding of the written plea agreement. Defendant stated she understood the terms of the written plea agreement and also stated that it contained the whole of her agreement with the Government and no promises or representations were made to her by the Government other than those terms contained in the written plea agreement. The Court ORDERED the written plea agreement filed.
The undersigned then reviewed with Defendant Count Seven and Count Twenty-Nine of the Indictment and the elements the Government would have to prove, charging her in Count Seven with Distribution of Heroin in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841 (a)(1) and 841 (B)(1)(C) and, in Count Twenty-Nine with Maintaining a Drug Involved Premises - Aiding and Abetting, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2 and Title 21, United States Code, Section 856(a)(1). Subsequently, Defendant Michelle Elaine Queen pled GUILTY to the charge contained in Count Seven and the charge contained in County Twenty-Nine of the Indictment. However, before accepting Defendant's plea, the undersigned inquired of Defendant's understanding of the charges against her, inquired of Defendant's understanding of the consequences of her pleading guilty to the charges, and obtained the factual basis for Defendant's plea.
The Government proffered a factual basis for the plea. The Government explained that on January 18, 2017, two confidential informants working under the direction of the Harrison County Drug and Violent Crimes Task Force arranged a purchase of both marijuana and heroin from Defendant Michelle Elaine Queen. Ms. Queen advised the informants to come to her residence where the controlled substances would be provided. The Task Force Agents provided the confidential informants with official task force funds and audio/video recording devices. The confidential informants, under surveillance, travelled to the residence of Earnest Claypool and Defendant Michelle Elaine Queen in Stonewood, in Harrison County, in the Northern District of West Virginia. There, the confidential informants provided the Defendant with $290 of task force funds and Defendant Michelle Queen provided the informants with heroin and marijuana. The controlled substances were sent to the DEA laboratory for testing. The results returned as 26.90 grams of marijuana and 0.132 grams of heroin. During the investigation by the Harrison County Drug and Violent Crimes Task Force, there were a total of five purchases of marijuana and heroin and one purchase of marijuana between November 9, 2016, and September 6, 2017, from Defendant Michelle Queen at her residence in Stonewood, in Harrison County, in the Northern District of West Virginia. Further, during a search warrant executed on September 6, 2017, agents located firearms at the Defendant's residence, along with one hundred grams of marijuana, several five gallon buckets with marijuana residue, and $1,559 in U.S. currency.
Neither counsel for Defendant nor Defendant had any questions for the witness. Defendant stated she heard, understood, and did not disagree with the Government's proffer. Additionally, Defendant provided a factual basis for the commission of the offense. The undersigned Magistrate Judge concludes the offenses charged in Count Seven and Count Twenty-Nine of the Indictment are supported by an independent basis in fact concerning each of the essential elements of such offense, and that independent basis is provided by the Government's proffer.
The undersigned then reviewed with Defendant the statutory penalties applicable to an individual adjudicated guilty of the felony charges contained in Count Seven and Count Twenty-Nine of the Indictment 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 her and that the possible statutory maximum sentence which could be imposed upon her conviction or adjudication of guilty on Count Seven was imprisonment for a period of twenty (20) years, a fine of $1,000,000, and a term of three (3) years of supervised release. As to Count Twenty-Nine, Defendant understood that the possible statutory maximum sentence which could be imposed upon her conviction or adjudication of guilty was imprisonment for a period of not more than twenty (20) years, a fine of $500,000, and a term of three (3) years of supervised release. The undersigned further determined Defendant understood the Court would impose a special mandatory assessment of $100.00 for each felony conviction payable within forty days following entry of this plea. Defendant also understood that her sentence could be increased if he had a prior firearm offense, violent felony conviction, or prior drug conviction. She also understood he might be required by the Court to pay the costs of her incarceration, supervision, and probation.
The undersigned also informed Defendant whether she understood that by pleading guilty she was forfeiting other rights such as right to vote, right to serve on a jury, and the right to legally possess a firearm.
Additionally, the undersigned asked Defendant whether she understood that if she were not a citizen of the United States, by pleading guilty to a felony charge she would be subject to deportation at the conclusion of any sentence; that she would be denied future entry into the United States; and that she would be denied citizenship if she ever applied for it. Defendant stated that she understood.
The undersigned also reviewed with Defendant her waiver of appellate and collateral attack rights. Defendant understood that she was waiving her right to appeal her 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 her plea agreement, she was waiving her right to challenge her conviction and sentence in any post-conviction proceeding, including any proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant understood, however, that she was reserving the right to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct that she learned about after the plea hearing and agreed that she was unaware of any ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct in her case at this time. From the foregoing, the undersigned determined that Defendant understood her 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 her knowledgeable and voluntary execution of the written plea bargain agreement, and determined the entry into said written plea bargain agreement was both knowledgeable and voluntary on the part of Defendant.
The undersigned Magistrate Judge further inquired of Defendant, her counsel, and the Government as to the non-binding recommendations and stipulations contained in the written plea bargain agreement and determined that Defendant understood, with respect to the plea bargain agreement and to Defendant's entry of a plea of guilty to the felony charge contained in Count Seven and Count Twenty-Nine of the Indictment. The undersigned Magistrate Judge informed Defendant that he would write the subject Report and Recommendation and a pre-sentence investigation report would be prepared by the probation officer attending the District Court. The undersigned advised the Defendant that the District Judge would adjudicate the Defendant guilty of the felony charged under Count Seven and Count Twenty-Nine of the Indictment. Only after the District Court had an opportunity to review the pre-sentence investigation report, would the District Court 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 her to a sentence which was different from that which she expected, she would not be permitted to withdraw her guilty plea. Defendant and her counsel each acknowledged their understanding and Defendant maintained her desire to have her guilty plea accepted.
Defendant also understood that her 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 she understood, that the Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, and that, even if the District Judge did not follow the Sentencing Guidelines or sentenced her to a higher sentence than she expected, she would not have a right to withdraw her guilty plea. Defendant further stated that her attorney showed her how the advisory guideline chart worked but did not promise her any specific sentence at the time of sentencing. Defendant stated that she understood her attorney could not predict or promise her what actual sentence she would receive from the sentencing judge at the sentencing hearing. Defendant further understood there was no parole in the federal system, but that she 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, Michelle Elaine Queen, with the consent of her counsel, William Pennington, Esq., proceeded to enter a verbal plea of GUILTY to the felony charge in Count Seven and Count Twenty-Nine of the Indictment.
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 her right to have an Article Ill Judge hear and accept her plea and elected to voluntarily consent to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge hearing her plea; Defendant understood the charges against her, not only as to the Indictment as a whole, but in particular as to Count Seven and Count Twenty-Nine of the Indictment; Defendant understood the consequences of her plea of guilty, in particular the maximum statutory penalty to which he would be exposed for Count Seven and Count Twenty-Nine; Defendant made a knowing and voluntary plea of guilty to Count Seven and Count Twenty-Nine of the Indictment; 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 Seven and Count Twenty-Nine of the Indictment 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. 55) filed on January 23, 2018.
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. Respectfully submitted on October 4, 2019
/s/_________
MICHAEL JOHN ALOI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE