From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Sorenson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION
Mar 15, 2019
CR 18-59-M-DLC (D. Mont. Mar. 15, 2019)

Opinion

CR 18-59-M-DLC

03-15-2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BLADE MICHAEL SORENSON, Defendant.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and has entered a plea of guilty to one count of the possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count II) and one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count III) as set forth in the Indictment. Defendant further agrees to the forfeiture allegation in the Indictment. In exchange for Defendant's plea, the United States has agreed to dismiss Count I of the Indictment.

After examining the Defendant under oath, I have made the following determinations:

1. That the Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed and voluntary plea to the criminal offense charged against him, and an informed and voluntary admission to the allegation of forfeiture;

2. That the Defendant is aware of the nature of the charge against him and the consequences of pleading guilty to the charge;

3. That the Defendant understands the allegation of forfeiture and the consequences of admitting to the allegation;

4. That the Defendant fully understands his constitutional rights, and the extent to which he is waiving those rights by pleading guilty to the criminal offense charged against him, and admitting to the allegation of forfeiture;

5. That both his plea of guilty to the criminal offense charged against him and his admission to the allegation of forfeiture are knowingly and voluntarily entered, and are both supported by independent factual grounds sufficient to prove each of the essential elements of the criminal offense charged and the legal basis for the forfeiture.

The Court further concludes that the Defendant had adequate time to review the Plea Agreement with counsel, that he fully understands each and every provision of the agreement and that all of the statements in the Plea Agreement are true. Therefore, I recommend that the Defendant be adjudged guilty of Counts II and III of the Indictment, that sentence be imposed, and that the agreed forfeiture be imposed against Defendant. I further recommend that Count I of the Indictment be dismissed.

This report is forwarded with the recommendation that the Court defer a decision regarding acceptance until the Court has reviewed the Plea Agreement and the presentence report.

DATED this 15th day of March, 2019.

/s/_________

Jeremiah C. Lynch

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Sorenson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION
Mar 15, 2019
CR 18-59-M-DLC (D. Mont. Mar. 15, 2019)
Case details for

United States v. Sorenson

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BLADE MICHAEL SORENSON, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

Date published: Mar 15, 2019

Citations

CR 18-59-M-DLC (D. Mont. Mar. 15, 2019)