Memorandum Opinion and Order — United States v. April Elick

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia · No. 1:25-cr-00056 · Doc. 20 · 2025-06-03 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 
 
AT BLUEFIELD 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
 
CRIMINAL NO. 1:25-00056 
 
APRIL ELICK 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 
In Bluefield, on June 2, 2025, came the defendant April 
Elick, in person and by counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant 
Federal Public Defender, and came the United States by Andrew 
Tessman, Assistant United States Attorney, for the purpose of 
considering the defendant’s plea of guilty to the Information, 
charging her with theft of government money, in violation of 
Title 18 United States Code, Section 641.  Jacob Grimmett, United 
States Probation Officer Assistant, appeared on behalf of the 
United States Probation Department. 
The court inquired of the defendant, addressing her 
personally and by counsel, to determine the competency of the 
defendant to proceed.  The court found the defendant competent. 
The Assistant United States Attorney then offered for the 
court’s consideration and summarized the entirety of a written 
plea agreement signed by both the defendant and her counsel, 
Case 1:25-cr-00056     Document 20     Filed 06/03/25     Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 50

2 
 
which signatures the defendant and her counsel acknowledged in 
court. 
The court inquired of the defendant, her counsel and 
counsel for the United States as to the advantages which accrue 
to the defendant and the United States by virtue of a plea of 
guilty as opposed to a trial on the merits.  The court informed 
the defendant of the maximum penalties to which she will be 
exposed by virtue of her plea of guilty and defendant 
acknowledged her understanding of the same.  
After considering comments by counsel, the court found the 
defendant’s decision to enter a guilty plea to be fair to the 
interests of both the defendant and the United States for the 
reasons stated in court.  The court then conditionally approved 
the plea agreement in the interest of the administration of 
justice. 
The court next inquired as to the defendant’s plea and the 
defendant responded that she intended to plead guilty.  The court 
explained the statute under which this action is prosecuted and 
the elements which the United States would have had to prove, 
beyond a reasonable doubt, had the matter been tried.  The 
Assistant United States Attorney then stated the factual basis 
establishing that the defendant committed the offense to which she 
Case 1:25-cr-00056     Document 20     Filed 06/03/25     Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 51

3 
 
was pleading guilty.  The defendant admitted that the factual 
basis as stated was substantially true. 
The court informed the defendant of her right to be 
prosecuted by indictment pursuant to Rule 7 of the Federal Rules 
of Criminal Procedure.  Having been informed of this right, the 
defendant signed a waiver of right to prosecution by indictment, 
which signature she acknowledged in open court. 
The court informed the defendant, pursuant to the 
requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 
Procedure, of the constitutional rights she would waive by 
pleading guilty to the Information.  The court then determined 
that the defendant understood those rights.  The court advised 
the defendant that she could not withdraw her plea if she was 
dissatisfied with the sentence rendered.  
The court inquired of the defendant personally as to 
whether any threats or promises had been made to her to induce 
her to plead, whether any predictions were made regarding the 
sentence she might receive, and whether she had any second 
thoughts about entering a plea of guilty, to which questions the 
defendant responded in the negative. 
Based upon the defendant’s plea of guilty, as well as her 
factual admission of guilt, the court found that there existed a 
factual and legal basis for the defendant’s plea of guilty.  
Case 1:25-cr-00056     Document 20     Filed 06/03/25     Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 52

4 
 
Based upon the United States’ proffer of evidence against the 
defendant, the court found that there also existed an independent 
factual basis for the defendant’s plea of guilty.  The court 
further found that the defendant tendered her plea of guilty 
voluntarily and with a full understanding and awareness of the 
constitutional and other rights which she gives up by pleading 
guilty, and with an awareness of what the United States would 
have to prove against her if the case went to trial.  The court 
further found that the defendant had an appreciation of the 
consequences of her plea and accepted the defendant’s plea of 
guilty to the Information. 
Pursuant to Sentencing Guideline § 6B1.1(c), the court 
deferred acceptance of the plea agreement and an adjudication of 
guilt pending receipt of the presentence investigation report.  
Accordingly, the court adjudges and the defendant now stands 
provisionally guilty of the Information. 
The court scheduled the disposition of this matter for 
September 8, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., in Bluefield.  The Probation 
Department is directed to conduct a presentence investigation in 
this matter and to provide a report to this court.  Unless 
otherwise directed by this court, the probation officer is not to 
disclose the officer’s sentencing recommendation to anyone except 
the court.  
Case 1:25-cr-00056     Document 20     Filed 06/03/25     Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 53

5 
 
Sentencing Memoranda are NOT required in all cases.  If, 
however, either party intends to ask for a sentence outside the 
guidelines as calculated in the PSI, a sentencing memorandum must 
be filed indicating the extent of any requested 
variance/departure as well as the reasons supporting such a 
request.  Any sentencing memorandum must be filed no later TWO 
business days prior to the sentencing hearing. 
For the reasons stated on the record, the court found by 
clear and convincing evidence that defendant was not a flight 
risk or a danger to the community.  Accordingly, defendant was 
released on a $10,000.00 unsecured bond subject to all the 
standard conditions of release. 
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum 
Opinion and Order to counsel of record, the United States Marshal 
for the Southern District of West Virginia and the Probation 
Office of this court. 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 2025. 
ENTER: 
 
 
David  A.  Faber
Senior United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cr-00056     Document 20     Filed 06/03/25     Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 54

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.241315.20.0.pdf

Size

159,512 bytes

SHA-256

8ddb2d63ebcf2fc3ea2a161bb68c7f7452d0e18f4447fc05daa55f97ac6e4b5c

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.241315.20.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com