REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOLLOWING CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING

BRUCE E. REINHART, Magistrate Judge.

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Order of Reference from U.S. District Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz and the consent of the parties for a U.S. Magistrate Judge to accept a guilty plea by Defendant Jannie Marie Jones. The Court held a change of plea hearing on November 21, 2019, which was attended by Defendant, her counsel Peter Birch, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie Evans. The Court hereby advises as follows:

1. The Court advised Defendant of her right to have the hearing conducted by the presiding U.S. District Judge assigned to the case. The Court further advised Defendant that a U.S. Magistrate Judge was conducting the change of plea hearing by Order of Reference from the U.S. District Judge and as agreed to by Defendant, Defendant's attorneys, and the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to this case. The Court further advised Defendant that her sentence would be imposed by the presiding U.S. District Judge, who would make all findings and rulings regarding such sentence and would conduct a sentencing hearing at a time set by the U.S. District Judge.

2. The Court advised Defendant that she did not have to permit the undersigned to conduct this hearing and could require that the change of plea hearing be conducted by the U.S. District Judge. Defendant, Defendant's attorneys, and the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to the case all agreed on the record and consented to this Court conducting the change of plea hearing.

3. The Court then conducted a plea colloquy in accordance with the outline set forth in the Bench Book for U.S. District Judges and in conformity with the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.

4. A written plea agreement has been entered into by the parties in this case. This Court reviewed the plea agreement and had the Defendant acknowledge that she signed the plea agreement. This Court also made certain that Defendant was aware of any maximum sentences which could be imposed in this case pursuant to the plea agreement, sentencing guidelines, and applicable statutes.

5. Defendant acknowledged that she was fully satisfied with the services of her attorney and that she had full opportunity to discuss all facets of her case with her attorney, which she acknowledged that she understood.

6. Defendant pled guilty to Count One of the Indictment. Count One charges the defendant with theft of mail by a postal employee, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1709.

7. The United States agreed to seek dismissal of Count 2 of the Indictment after sentencing.

8. The parties submitted a Stipulated Factual Proffer Supporting the Guilty Plea, made part of the record and signed by Defendant, her counsel, and the Government. This factual proffer includes all of the essential elements of the offenses to which Defendant pled guilty. The Government orally summarized the factual basis for the plea on the record, including the essential elements of each offense. Defendant acknowledged that she signed the factual proffer and that all the statements contained therein are true.

9. Defendant has been referred to the U.S. Probation Office for the preparation of a pre-sentence investigation report.

Accordingly, based upon the foregoing and the plea colloquy conducted by this Court, the undersigned

RECOMMENDS that Defendant, JANNIE MARIE JONES, (1) be found to have freely, knowingly, and voluntarily entered a guilty plea to Count 1 of the Indictment, (2) that her guilty plea be accepted, (3) that she be adjudicated guilty of the offense, and (4) that a sentencing hearing as scheduled by the U.S. District Judge be conducted for a final disposition of this matter.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT

The parties shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Report and Recommendation within which to file any written objections with U.S. District Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz. Failure to file timely objections may bar the parties from attacking the factual findings contained herein on appeal. See Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Hallmark Builders. Inc., 996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). Further, "failure to object in accordance with the provisions of [28 U.S.C.] § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions." See 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (I.O.P.-3)

DONE AND RECOMMENDED.