Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Lopez-Ramirez, 1:19-cr-00005. (2019)

Court: District Court, W.D. Michigan Number: infdco20190325a51 Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 01, 2019
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ELLEN S. CARMODY , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to W.D. Mich. LCrR. 11.1, I conducted a plea hearing in the captioned case on February 28, 2019, after receiving the written consent of defendant and all counsel. There is no written plea agreement. At the hearing, defendant Miguel Angel Lopez-Ramirez entered a plea of guilty to the Superseding Information charging defendant with alien reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326(a). On the basis of the record made at the
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to W.D. Mich. LCrR. 11.1, I conducted a plea hearing in the captioned case on February 28, 2019, after receiving the written consent of defendant and all counsel. There is no written plea agreement. At the hearing, defendant Miguel Angel Lopez-Ramirez entered a plea of guilty to the Superseding Information charging defendant with alien reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On the basis of the record made at the hearing, I find that defendant is fully capable and competent to enter an informed plea; that the plea is made knowingly and with full understanding of each of the rights waived by defendant; that it is made voluntarily and free from any force, threats, or promises; that the defendant understands the nature of the charge and penalties provided by law; and that the plea has a sufficient basis in fact.

I therefore recommend that defendant's plea of guilty to the Superseding Information be accepted and that the court adjudicate defendant guilty. Acceptance of the plea, adjudication of guilt, and imposition of sentence are specifically reserved for the district judge.

OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within 14 days of the date of service of this notice. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court's order. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).

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