Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. Morris, 19-CR-209-JPS. (2020)

Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin Number: infdco20200109h95 Visitors: 18
Filed: Jan. 08, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 08, 2020
Summary: ORDER J.P. STADTMUELLER , District Judge . On November 19, 2019, the government filed a single-count Indictment in this case, charging the defendant for a violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3). (Docket #1). On December 12, 2019, the parties filed a plea agreement indicating that the defendant agreed to plead guilty to the Indictment. (Docket #15). The parties appeared before Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin on December 20, 2019, to conduct a plea colloquy pursuant to Federal Rule of Crimina
More

ORDER

On November 19, 2019, the government filed a single-count Indictment in this case, charging the defendant for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). (Docket #1). On December 12, 2019, the parties filed a plea agreement indicating that the defendant agreed to plead guilty to the Indictment. (Docket #15).

The parties appeared before Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin on December 20, 2019, to conduct a plea colloquy pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. (Docket #16). The defendant entered a plea of guilty as to Count One of the Indictment. Id. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, Magistrate Judge Duffin determined that the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and that the offense charged was supported by independent factual bases containing each of the essential elements of the offense. (Docket #16 and #17).

Thereafter, Magistrate Judge Duffin filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court, recommending that: (1) the defendant's plea of guilty be accepted; (2) a presentence investigation report be prepared; and (3) the defendant be adjudicated guilty and have a sentence imposed accordingly. (Docket #17). Pursuant to General L. R. 72(c) (E.D. Wis.), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 59(b) or 72(b) if applicable, 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.

To date, no party has filed such an objection.

The Court has considered Magistrate Judge Duffin's recommendation and, having received no objection thereto, will adopt it.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin's report and recommendation (Docket #17) 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