Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty re: count(s) One, Two, Three — USA v. Bruey et al. (Dkt. 70, M.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida · No. 2:21-cr-00074 · Doc. 70 · 2022-03-16 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
FORT MYERS DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
CASE NO.: 2:21-cr-74-TPB-MRM 
AMBER REWIS BRUEY 
 
/ 
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY 
The Defendant, by consent,1 appeared before me by video conferencing 
pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, M.D. Fla. R. 1.02, and the Court’s Administrative 
Orders, Case No. 8:20-mc-25, Docs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (the Administrative 
Orders),2 and entered a plea of guilty to Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, 
Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, and Eighteen 
of the Indictment (Doc. 3).   
 
 
 
1  Defendant consented on the record and in writing to a United States Magistrate 
Judge conducting the plea hearing and waived the right to have the plea hearing 
before a United States District Judge.  (Doc. 65). 
 
2  The Administrative Orders implement the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 
Security Act, H.R. 748 (the CARES Act), and the March 27, 2020 action by the 
Judicial Conference of the United States, by authorizing judges to conduct certain 
proceedings by video conferencing if the defendant consents after conferring with 
counsel.  See In re The National Emergency Declared on March 13, 2020, Case No. 8:20-
mc-25, Administrative Orders at Doc. 1 (Mar. 29, 2020), Doc. 2 (June 29, 2020), 
Doc. 3 (Sept. 22, 2020), Doc. 4 (Nov. 23, 2020), Doc. 5 (Feb. 24, 2021), Doc. 6 (May 
24, 2021), Doc. 7 (June 25, 2021), Doc. 8 (Aug. 20, 2021), Doc. 9 (Oct. 28, 2021), 
Doc. 10 (Jan. 21, 2022). 
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D     Document 70     Filed 03/16/22     Page 1 of 4 PageID 166

2 
 
A. 
Authority to Conduct the Plea Hearing by Video Conferencing 
The Defendant, after consultation with counsel, consented to proceed with the 
plea hearing by video conferencing (see Doc. 65) and Defendant confirmed the same 
on the record at the hearing.  The United States did not object to conducting the plea 
hearing by video conferencing. 
Pursuant to the Administrative Orders, the Undersigned finds and recommends 
that the plea in this case could not be further delayed without serious harm to the 
interests of justice because: 
1. 
delaying the proceedings further to accommodate an in-person 
plea hearing is impracticable given that there is no ascertainable 
end to the current National Emergency stemming from the 
COVID-19 virus, and the interests of justice will be seriously 
harmed by prolonged, indefinite delays of the plea hearing in light 
of Defendant’s stated desire to plead guilty; and 
 
2. 
proceeding with the plea hearing by video conferencing at this time 
reduces the potential that any necessary participant in the hearing 
– including, specifically, the Defendant, Defendant’s counsel, the 
lead Assistant United States Attorney, and/or the lead case 
agent(s) – may become unavailable or unable to attend a plea 
hearing in-person due to illness. 
 
The use of video conferencing to conduct the plea hearing was, therefore, authorized 
under the Administrative Orders. 
For these reasons, I RECOMMEND the presiding United States District Judge 
approve and adopt the use of video conferencing for the plea hearing. 
B. 
Acceptance of the Plea 
After cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath concerning each of 
the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable 
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D     Document 70     Filed 03/16/22     Page 2 of 4 PageID 167

3 
 
and voluntary as to Counts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, 
Ten, Eleven, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, and Eighteen, and that the 
offenses charged are supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the 
essential elements of each Count.  I, therefore, RECOMMEND that the plea of guilty 
be accepted, that the Defendant be adjudged guilty, and that sentence be imposed. 
C. 
Sentencing 
During the video-conference plea hearing, the Undersigned inquired whether 
Defendant also consents to proceed with the sentencing by video conferencing and to 
waive in-person attendance at the sentencing.  Defendant, through counsel, stated on 
the record that Defendant does not consent to proceed with the sentencing by video 
conferencing.   
D. 
Waiver of Objection Period 
The parties waived the fourteen-day objection period to this Report and 
Recommendation on the record at the video-conference hearing and in writing (Docs. 
65, 67). 
Respectfully RECOMMENDED in Fort Myers, Florida on March 16, 2022. 
 
 
 
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D     Document 70     Filed 03/16/22     Page 3 of 4 PageID 168

4 
 
Copies furnished to: 
Presiding District Judge 
Counsel of Record 
Unrepresented Parties 
 
 
Case 2:21-cr-00074-TPB-K_D     Document 70     Filed 03/16/22     Page 4 of 4 PageID 169

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.393556.70.0.pdf

Size

152,865 bytes

SHA-256

3a2e384329b658448e90a2030374780661904b4f35fd1953a5f03d25adf981b3

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.393556.70.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)