Opinion
Criminal Action No. 2:13cr10
04-18-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, Defendant.
ORDER/OPINION REGARDING PLEA OF GUILTY
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. Defendant, Christopher Williams, in person and by counsel, Brian J. Kornbrath, appeared before me on April 17, 2013. The Government appeared by Shawn A. Morgan, its United States Attorney.
The Court determined that Defendant was prepared to enter a plea of "Guilty" to Count One of the Indictment. Thereupon, the Court proceeded with the Rule 11 proceeding by first placing Defendant under oath. 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 to summarize the written Plea Agreement. Defendant advised that the agreement as summarized by the AUSA was correct. At the conclusion of the summarization counsel for Defendant advised that at sentencing, if the Court goes along with the agreement, the Government would move to dismiss Count Two. The AUSA appearing agreed. The Court inquired and determined that Defendant understood. The Court ORDERED the written Plea Agreement filed.
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 stated in open court that he voluntarily waived his right to have an Article III Judge hear and accept his plea and voluntarily consented to the undersigned Magistrate Judge hearing and accepting his plea, and tendered to the Court a written Waiver of Article III Judge and Consent To Enter Guilty Plea Before Magistrate Judge, which waiver and consent was signed by Defendant and countersigned by Defendant's counsel and was concurred in by the signature of the Assistant United States Attorney appearing.
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 Article III Judge and consent to enter guilty plea before a Magistrate Judge was freely and voluntarily given and the written waiver and consent was freely and voluntarily executed by Defendant, Christopher Williams, 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.
The undersigned reviewed with Defendant Count One of the Indictment, including the elements the United States would have to prove at trial, charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
The undersigned Magistrate Judge further examined Defendant relative to his knowledgeable and voluntary execution of the written plea bargain agreement signed by him on April 15, 2013, and determined the entry into said written plea bargain agreement was both knowledgeable and voluntary on the part of Defendant. The undersigned 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 undersigned reviewed with Defendant Count One of the Indictment, the statutory penalties applicable to an individual adjudicated guilty of the felony charge contained in Count One of the Indictment, the impact of the sentencing guidelines on sentencing in general, and inquired of Defendant as to his competency to proceed with the plea hearing. From said review the undersigned Magistrate Judge determined Defendant understood the nature of the charge pending against him. He also understood that the maximum penalty to which he would be exposed would be a term of imprisonment of not more than ten (10) years; a fine of not more than $250,000 dollars, or both fine and imprisonment; and a period of supervised release of three (3) years. Defendant also understood the Court would impose a special mandatory assessment of $100.00 for the felony conviction payable on or before the date of sentencing. He also understood he might be required by the Court to pay the costs of his incarceration and supervised release.
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 be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant further understood there was no parole in the federal system, although 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.
The undersigned also reviewed with Defendant his waiver of appellate rights as follows: Ct: Did you and Mr. Kornbrath discuss that you have a right to appeal your conviction and sentence to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals within 14 days of the announcement of your sentence? Def: Yes, sir. Ct: Did you also discuss with Mr. Kornbrath and did you understand from that discussion that you may also have a right under Title 28 USC section 2255, to collaterally attack or challenge that sentence and how it is being carried out? Def: Yes, sir. Ct: Under paragraph 13 of your written plea agreement, you give up your right to directly appeal your conviction and your sentence and you give up your right to collaterally attack or challenge it if the actual sentence is the equivalent of a guideline-calculated sentence using a base offense level - a base offense means a base level before any adjustments, of 20 or lower. You give it up. You only keep those rights if your base offense level is 21 or up. Did you understand that? Def: Yes, sir. Ct: And did you intend to give up those valuable rights and retain them under conditions under paragraph 13 of your written plea agreement? Def: Yes, sir.
From the foregoing colloquy the undersigned determined that Defendant understood his appellate rights and knowingly gave up those rights pursuant to the written plea bargain agreement.
The undersigned Magistrate Judge further inquired of Defendant, his counsel, and the Government as to the non-binding recommendations and stipulation 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 One of the Indictment, the undersigned Magistrate Judge would write the subject Order and would further order a pre-sentence investigation report be prepared by the probation officer attending the District Court, and only after the District Court had an opportunity to review the pre-sentence investigation report, would the District Court adjudicate the Defendant guilty of the felony offense contained in Count One of the Indictment and 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 the Defendant that the District Judge may not agree with any of the recommendations or stipulation 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 and stipulation 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 plea of guilty accepted.
Thereupon, Defendant, Christopher Williams, with the consent of his counsel, Brian J. Kornbrath, proceeded to enter a verbal plea of GUILTY to the felony charge contained in Count One of the Indictment.
The Court then heard the testimony of Government witness ATF Special Agent Kenneth Grace, who testified he was involved in the investigation of Defendant. On March 5, 2013, ATF Agent Ella Snyder was contacted by Defendant's wife, Karla Williams, advising that Defendant possessed a firearm and that she did not know where he got it. Ms. Williams emailed photos of the firearm to Agent Snyder. One close-up photo showed the serial number of the firearm. Agent Snyder contacted the Harrison County Sheriff's Department, in November 2012, which confirmed that that rifle had been reported stolen along with other items from a residence. On March 12, 2013, Agent Snyder contacted a Ms. Scharfe, who said she had bought the firearm at WalMart. Agent Snyder documented that the firearm had been scold to Scharfe in February 2012. On March 15, 2013, a search warrant was executed at Defendant's residence, pursuant to which the firearm was seized along with other items that had been reported stolen.
Special Agent Grace's investigation showed that Defendant was a prohibited person by virtue of a burglary conviction. His civil rights had not been restored. ATF Agent Greg Perry examined the seized firearm and determined it had not been manufactured in West Virginia, and therefore was involved in interstate commerce.
Defendant testified that he heard, understood, and agreed with SA Grace, testimony. The undersigned United States Magistrate Judge concludes the offense charged in Count One of the Indictment is supported by an independent basis in fact concerning each of the essential elements of such offense. That independent basis is provided by the testimony of Special Agent Grace.
Upon consideration of all of the above, the undersigned Magistrate Judge finds that Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea. The Court further finds that 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 and accepting his plea; Defendant understood the charges against him, not only as to the Indictment as a whole, but in particular as to Count One of the Indictment; Defendant understands the consequences of his plea of guilty, including the maximum statutory penalty; Defendant made a knowing and voluntary plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment; and Defendant's plea is independently supported by the testimony of Special Agent Grace, which provides, beyond a reasonable doubt, proof of each of the essential elements of the charge to which Defendant has pled guilty.
The undersigned Magistrate Judge therefore ACCEPTS Defendant's plea of guilty to the felony charge contained Count One of the Indictment and recommends he be adjudged guilty on said charge as contained in Count One of the Indictment and have sentence imposed accordingly.
The undersigned further directs that a pre-sentence investigation report be prepared by the adult probation officer assigned to this case.
Defendant is remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal pending further proceedings in this matter.
The Clerk shall direct copies of this order to counsel for the United States, to counsel for the defendant, to the United States Marshal, and to the United States Probation Officer.
JOHN S. KAULL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE