Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Hutchins, 17-CR-124-JPS. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin Number: infdco20190521g16 Visitors: 10
Filed: May 20, 2019
Latest Update: May 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER J.P. STADTMUELLER , District Judge . On June 5, 2018, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Defendant with ten counts of conspiracy, fraud, and unlawfully intercepting communications. (Docket #86). On April 19, 2019, the parties filed a plea agreement indicating that Defendant agreed to plead guilty to Counts One and Two of the superseding indictment. (Docket #124). The parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph on May 2, 2019 to conduct a plea colloquy
More

ORDER

On June 5, 2018, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Defendant with ten counts of conspiracy, fraud, and unlawfully intercepting communications. (Docket #86). On April 19, 2019, the parties filed a plea agreement indicating that Defendant agreed to plead guilty to Counts One and Two of the superseding indictment. (Docket #124).

The parties appeared before Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph on May 2, 2019 to conduct a plea colloquy pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. (Docket #126). Defendant entered a plea of guilty as to Counts One and Two the superseding indictment. (Docket #127 at 1). After cautioning and examining Defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, Magistrate Joseph determined that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and that the offenses charged were supported by an independent factual basis containing each of the essential elements of the offenses. Id.

Magistrate Joseph filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court, recommending that: (1) Defendant's plea of guilty be accepted; (2) a presentence investigation report be prepared; and (3) Defendant be adjudicated guilty and have a sentence imposed accordingly. Id. Pursuant to General Local Rule 72(c), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b), the parties were advised that written objections to that recommendation, or any part thereof, could be filed within fourteen days of the date of service of the recommendation. Id. at 1-2. To date, no party has filed such an objection. The Court has considered Magistrate Joseph's recommendation and, having received no objection thereto, will adopt it.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph's Report and Recommendation (Docket #127) be and the same is hereby ADOPTED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer