Report and Recommendation re Rule 11(c)(1)(B) Guilty Plea Hearing — United States v. Hillary Sanchez-Santiago

Summary

Magistrate judge's report and recommendation on a guilty plea in the District of Puerto Rico, United States v. Hillary Sanchez-Santiago. Sanchez was charged in a multi-count indictment on May 11, 2023 and agrees to plead guilty to Count Six, which charges a scheme to defraud the United States Small Business Administration and a bank through false applications for EIDL and PPP funds, including a PPP loan in the amount of $20,460. The defendant appeared before the magistrate judge on February 15, 2024 and entered a plea of guilty as to Count Six. The magistrate judge recommends that the court accept the guilty plea, with objections due within fourteen (14) days and a sentencing hearing to be set before District Judge Aida Delgado-Colon.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Report and Recommendation re Rule 11(c)(1)(B) Guilty Plea Hearing — United States v. Hillary Sanchez-Santiago.” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-3-23-cr-00195-dkt-478-d-p-r-0b649b9272/, SHA-256 7dd05eeb01ed7919f32e3e3ff07161579ca42c82405d1a6e2ddfeaf9df7e6ecb.

Full text

Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC Document 478 Filed 02/16/24 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
CRIMINAL NO. 23-195 (ADC)
HILLARY SANCHEZ-SANTIAGO [3],
Defendant.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
RE: RULE 11(c)(1)(B) GUILTY PLEA HEARING

I. Procedural Background
On May 11, 2023, defendant Hillary Sanchez was charged in a multi-count indictment. She
agrees to plead guilty to Count Six. Count Six charges that from on or about April 2020, through
the return of the indictment, Ms. Sanchez and others known and unknown to the grand jury, aiding
and abetting one another, knowingly devised, and intended to devise, a scheme and artifice to
defraud the United States Small Business Administration and a bank, and to obtain money and
property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, by
submitting and causing to be submitted false and fraudulent applications for EIDL and PPP funds.
Specifically, Count Six charges that, on or about March 18, 2021, Ms. Sanchez and another
defendant aiding and abetting one another for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice to
defraud described above, and attempting to do so, transmitted, and caused to be transmitted,
writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds by means of wire communications in interstate
commerce to obtain a PPP loan in the amount of $20,460, all in violation of Title 18, United States
Code, Section 1343 and 2.
Defendant appeared before me, assisted by the court interpreter, on February 15, 2024,
since the Rule 11 hearing was referred by the court. See United States v. Woodard, 387 F.3d
1329 (11th Cir. 2004) (magistrate judge had authority to conduct Rule 11 guilty plea hearing with
consent of defendant). She was advised of the purpose of the hearing and placed under oath with
instructions that her answers must be truthful lest she subject herself to possible charges of perjury
or making a false statement.
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC Document 478 Filed 02/16/24 Page 2 of 6

Page 2
USA v. Hillary Sanchez-Santiago [3]
Cr. 23-195 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

II. Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge
Defendant was advised of her right to hold all proceedings, including the change of plea
hearing, before a district court judge. She received an explanation of the differences between the
scope of jurisdiction and functions of a district judge and a magistrate judge. She was informed
that if she elects to proceed before a magistrate judge, then the magistrate judge will conduct the
hearing and prepare a report and recommendation, subject to review and approval of the district
judge, advising how to proceed. The defendant then voluntarily consented to proceed before a
magistrate judge.
III. Proceedings Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the acceptance of guilty pleas
to federal criminal violations. Pursuant to Rule 11, in order for a plea of guilty to constitute a
valid waiver of the defendant’s right to trial, the guilty plea must be knowing and voluntary. United
States v. Hernández-Wilson, 186 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 1999). “Rule 11 was intended to ensure that
a defendant who pleads guilty does so with an ‘understanding of the nature of the charge and
consequences of his plea.’” United States v. Cotal-Crespo, 47 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1995) (quoting
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 467 (1969)). There are three core concerns in a Rule
11 proceeding: 1) absence of coercion; 2) understanding of the charges; and 3) knowledge of the
consequences of the guilty plea. Cotal-Crespo, 47 F.3d at 4 (citing United States v. Allard, 926
F.2d 1237, 1244 (1st Cir. 1991)).
A. Competence to Enter a Guilty Plea
This magistrate judge questioned the defendant about her age, education, employment,
history of any treatment for mental illness or addiction, use of any medication, drugs, or alcohol,
and her understanding of the purpose of the hearing, all in order to ascertain her capacity to
understand, answer and comprehend the change of plea colloquy. The court confirmed that the
defendant received the indictment and fully discussed the charges with her counsel and was
satisfied with the advice and representation she received. The court further inquired whether
defendant’s counsel or counsel for the government had any doubt as to her capacity to plead,
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC Document 478 Filed 02/16/24 Page 3 of 6

Page 3
USA v. Hillary Sanchez-Santiago [3]
Cr. 23-195 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

receiving answers from both that the defendant was competent to enter a plea. After considering
the defendant’s responses, and observing her demeanor, a finding was made that Ms. Sanchez was
competent to plead and fully aware of the purpose of the hearing.
B. Maximum Penalties
Upon questioning, the defendant expressed her understanding of the maximum penalties
prescribed by statute for the offense to which she was pleading guilty, namely: as to Count Six, a
term of imprisonment of up to twenty years, a fine of up to $250,000.00, or both, and a term of
supervised release of up to three years. A Special Monetary Assessment of $100.00 will also be
imposed, to be deposited in the Crime Victim Fund, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,
§3013(a). The court explained the nature of supervised release and the consequences of
revocation. The court may also impose a forfeiture order. The defendant indicated that she
understood the maximum penalties and the potential consequences of the guilty plea.
C. Plea Agreement
Ms. Sanchez was shown a document titled “Plea Agreement,” which is part of the record,
and identified her initials and her signatures. She confirmed that she had the opportunity to read
and discuss the Plea Agreement with her attorney before she signed it, that her attorney explained
the document, that it represented the entirety of her understanding with the government, that she
understood its terms, and that no one had made any other or different promises or assurances to
induce her to plead guilty. Ms. Sanchez also acknowledged and agreed to the content of a “Plea
Agreement Supplement,” which was made part of the record with the court’s signature.
The defendant was then admonished, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B), and
expressed her understanding, that the terms of the plea agreement are merely recommendations to
the court, and that the district judge who will preside over the sentencing hearing can reject the
recommendation without permitting the defendant withdraw her guilty plea, and impose a sentence
that is more severe than the defendant might anticipate.
The parties’ sentencing calculations and recommendations appear in the Plea Agreement,
and were explained in open court. The defendant confirmed that these were the sentencing
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC Document 478 Filed 02/16/24 Page 4 of 6

Page 4
USA v. Hillary Sanchez-Santiago [3]
Cr. 23-195 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

recommendations she agreed to with the government. The defendant was specifically informed
that any sentencing calculations contained in the Plea Agreement were not binding for the
sentencing court, but were only estimates of possible terms of her sentence, and that the court,
after considering the applicable Sentencing Guidelines, could impose a sentence different from
any estimate in the Plea Agreement or provided by her attorney, and that the court had authority
to impose a sentence that is more severe or less severe than the sentence called for by the
Sentencing Guidelines. The defendant was advised, and understood, that the Sentencing
Guidelines are no longer mandatory and are thus considered advisory, and that during sentencing
the court will consider the sentencing criteria found at Title 18, United States Code, Section
3553(a).
The defendant was advised that under some circumstances she or the government may have
the right to appeal the sentence the court imposes. The defendant was further informed, and
professed to understand, that the Plea Agreement contains a waiver of appeal provision under
which the defendant agreed to waive her right to appeal the judgement and sentence if the court
accepts the Plea Agreement and sentences her according to its terms and conditions.
D. Waiver of Constitutional Rights
The defendant was specifically advised that she has the right to persist in a plea of not
guilty, and if she does so persist that she has the right to a speedy and public trial by jury, or before
a judge sitting without a jury if the court and the government so agree; that at trial she would be
presumed innocent and the government would have to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt;
that she would have the right to assistance of counsel for her defense, and if she could not afford
an attorney the court would appoint one to represent her throughout all stages of the proceedings;
that at trial she would have the right to hear and cross examine the government’s witnesses, the
right to decline to testify unless she voluntarily elected to do so, and the right to the issuance of
subpoenas or compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses to testify on her behalf.
She was further informed that if she decided not to testify or put on evidence at trial, her failure to
do so could not be used against her, and that at trial the jury must return a unanimous verdict before
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC Document 478 Filed 02/16/24 Page 5 of 6

Page 5
USA v. Hillary Sanchez-Santiago [3]
Cr. 23-195 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

she could be found guilty.
The defendant specifically acknowledged understanding these rights, and understanding
that by entering a plea of guilty there would be no trial and she will be waiving or giving up the
rights that the court explained. The defendant’s attorney attested that she explained these rights to
her client and believed that the defendant understood her explanations.
The defendant was informed that parole has been abolished and that any sentence of
imprisonment must be served. Defendant was additionally informed that a pre-sentence report
would be prepared and considered by the district judge at sentencing. Defendant was further
admonished that her guilty plea, if accepted, may deprive her of valuable civil rights, such as the
right to vote, to hold public office, to serve on a jury, and to possess a firearm. The defendant
confirmed that she understood these consequences of her guilty plea.
E. Factual Basis for the Guilty Plea
Defendant was read in open court Count Six of the indictment and provided an explanation
of the elements of the offense. The meaning of terms used in the indictment was explained. Upon
questioning, the government presented to this magistrate judge and to defendant a summary of the
basis in fact for the offense charged in Count Six and the evidence the government had available
to establish, in the event defendant elected to go to trial, the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. The defendant was able to understand this explanation and agreed with the government’s
submission as to the evidence which could have been presented at trial.
F. Voluntariness
The defendant indicated that she was not being induced to plead guilty, but was entering
such a plea freely and voluntarily because in fact she is guilty, and that no one had threatened her
or offered her a thing of value in exchange for her plea. She acknowledged that no one had made
any different or other promises in exchange for her guilty plea, other than the recommendations
set forth in the Plea Agreement. Throughout the hearing the defendant was able to consult with her
attorney.
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC Document 478 Filed 02/16/24 Page 6 of 6

Page 6
USA v. Hillary Sanchez-Santiago [3]
Cr. 23-195 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

IV. Conclusion
The defendant, by consent, appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure, and entered a plea of guilty as to Count Six of the indictment.
After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath and in open court concerning
each of the subject matters mentioned in Rule 11, I find that the defendant, Hillary Sanchez, is
competent to enter this guilty plea, is aware of the nature of the offense charged and the maximum
statutory penalties that it carries, understands that the charge is supported by evidence and a basis
in fact, has admitted to the elements of the offense, and has done so in an intelligent and voluntary
manner with full knowledge of the consequences of her guilty plea. Therefore, I recommend that
the court accept the guilty plea and that the defendant be adjudged guilty as to Count Six of the
indictment.
This report and recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and Rule
72(d) of the Local Rules of this Court. Any objections to the same must be specific and must be
filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of its receipt. Failure to file timely and
specific objections to the report and recommendation is a waiver of the right to review by the
district court. United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986).
A sentencing hearing will be set before District Judge Aida Delgado-Colon.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 16th day of February, 2024.

s/Bruce J. McGiverin .
BRUCE J. McGIVERIN
United States Magistrate Judge

File and source

File: 478.pdf
Size: 195,562 bytes
SHA-256: 7dd05eeb01ed7919f32e3e3ff07161579ca42c82405d1a6e2ddfeaf9df7e6ecb
Our copy: 478.pdf
Original: No public link identified.