Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea Before the United States Magistrate Judge — No. 1:21-cr-00009 (Dkt. 29, E.D. Tex.)

Summary

Findings of fact and recommendation on a guilty plea before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, filed February 19, 2021 as Document 29 in United States v. Shashank Shekhar Rai, Case No. 1:21CR9, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division. The plea was entered on February 9, 2021 to Count One of the Information, which charges a false statement to influence a lender in connection with a $10,000,000 PPP loan application, stating that Rai Family LLC's average monthly payroll was $4,000,000 and that it had 250 employees, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014. The magistrate judge finds the plea knowing and voluntary and recommends that the District Court accept the plea agreement and adjudge Rai guilty.

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

“Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea Before the United States Magistrate Judge — No. 1:21-cr-00009 (Dkt. 29, E.D. Tex.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/findings-of-fact-and-recommendation-on-guilty-plea-before-the-united-s-137bf8a526/, SHA-256 c9fbb2bc9cd3e81e99f27d7146b9b584b5aac13af442ae83478e4046210de6c4.

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-00009-MAC-KFG Document 29 Filed 02/19/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 100

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §
§
v. § CASE NO. 1:21CR9
§
SHAHSANK SHEKHAR RAI §

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA
BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

By order of the District Court, this matter was referred to the undersigned United States

Magistrate Judge for administration of a guilty plea and allocution under Rules 11 and 32 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Magistrate judges have the statutory authority to conduct a

felony guilty plea proceeding as an “additional duty” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). United

States v. Bolivar-Munoz, 313 F.3d 253, 255 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 1642 (2003).

On February 9, 2021, this cause came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for

entry of a guilty plea by the defendant, Shashank Shekhar Rai, on Count One of the charging

Information filed in this cause.

-1-
Case 1:21-cr-00009-MAC-KFG Document 29 Filed 02/19/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 101

Count One of the Information charges that on or about April 8, 2020, in the Eastern

District of Texas, defendant Shashank Shekhar Rai, knowingly made a material false statement

for the purpose of influencing the action of Lender 1, an institution the accounts of which are

insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in connection with an application for a

PPP loan in the amount of $10,000,000 in that the defendant represented that Rai Family LLC's

average monthly payroll was $4,000,000 and that the company had 250 employees, when in

truth and in fact, as the defendant well knew, that information was false, all in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1014.

Defendant, Shashank Shekhar Rai, entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the

Information into the record at the hearing.

After conducting the proceeding in the form and manner prescribed by Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 11 the Court finds:

a. That Defendant, after consultation with counsel of record, has knowingly, freely and

voluntarily consented to the administration of the guilty plea in this cause by a United States

Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Texas subject to a final approval and imposition of

sentence by the District Court.

b. That Defendant and the Government have entered into a plea agreement and a plea

agreement addendum which were addressed in open court and entered into the record.

c. That Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that

Defendant is aware of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea, and that the

plea of guilty is a knowing, voluntary and freely made plea. Upon addressing the Defendant

personally in open court, the Court determines that Defendant’s plea is voluntary and did not

result from force, threats or promises. See FED. R. CRIM . P. 11(b)(2).

-2-
Case 1:21-cr-00009-MAC-KFG Document 29 Filed 02/19/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 102

d. That Defendant’s knowing, voluntary and freely made plea is supported by an

independent factual basis establishing each of the essential elements of the offense and

Defendant realizes that his conduct falls within the definition of the crimes charged under 18

U.S.C.§ 1014.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

As factual support for Defendant’s guilty plea, the Government presented a factual basis.

See Factual Basis and Stipulation. In support, the Government and Defendant stipulated that if

this case were to proceed to trial the Government would prove beyond a reasonable doubt,

through the sworn testimony of witnesses, including expert witnesses, as well as through

admissible exhibits, each and every essential element of the crime charged in Count One of the

Information. The Government would also prove that the defendant is one and the same person

charged in the Information and that the events described in Information occurred in the Eastern

District of Texas and elsewhere. The Court incorporates the proffer of evidence described in

detail in the factual basis and stipulation in support of the guilty plea.

Defendant, Shashank Shekhar Rai, agreed with and stipulated to the evidence presented

in the factual basis. Counsel for Defendant and the Government attested to Defendant’s

competency and capability to enter an informed plea of guilty. The Defendant agreed with the

evidence presented by the Government and personally testified that he was entering his guilty

plea knowingly, freely and voluntarily.

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

IT IS THEREFORE the recommendation of the undersigned United States Magistrate

Judge that the District Court accept the guilty plea of Defendant which the undersigned

determines to be supported by an independent factual basis establishing each of the essential

-3-
Case 1:21-cr-00009-MAC-KFG Document 29 Filed 02/19/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 103

elements of the offense charged in Count One of the charging Information on file in this

criminal proceeding. The Court also recommends that the District Court accept the plea

agreement and plea agreement addendum pursuant to the Local Rules for the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c).

Accordingly, it is further recommended that, Defendant, Shashank Shekhar Rai, be finally

adjudged as guilty of the charged offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1014.

Defendant is ordered to report to the United States Probation Department for the

preparation of a presentence report. At the plea hearing, the Court admonished the Defendant

that the District Court may reject the plea and that the District Court can decline to sentence

Defendant in accordance with the plea agreement and addendum, the federal sentencing

guidelines and/or the presentence report because the sentencing guidelines are advisory in

nature. The District Court may defer its decision to accept or reject the plea agreement and

addendum until there has been an opportunity to consider the presentence report. See FED. R.

CRIM . P. 11(c)(3). If the Court rejects the plea agreement, the Court will advise Defendant in

open court that it is not bound by the plea agreement and Defendant may have the opportunity to

withdraw the guilty plea, dependent upon the type of the plea agreement. See FED. R. CRIM . P.

11(c)(3)(B). If the plea agreement is rejected and Defendant still persists in the guilty plea, the

disposition of the case may be less favorable to Defendant than that contemplated by the plea

agreement or addendum. Defendant has the right to allocute before the District Court before

imposition of sentence.

-4-
Case 1:21-cr-00009-MAC-KFG Document 29 Filed 02/19/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 104

OBJECTIONS

Objections must be: (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within fourteen

(14) days after being served with a copy of this report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party’s

failure to object bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district judge of

proposed findings and recommendations, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error of unobjected-to factual

findings. and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, see Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.

Ass’n., 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The constitutional safeguards afforded by

Congress and the courts require that, when a party takes advantage of his right to object to a

magistrate’s findings or recommendation, a district judge must exercise its nondelegable

authority by considering the actual evidence and not merely by reviewing and blindly adopting

the magistrate’s report and recommendation. See Hernandez v. Estelle, 711 F.2d 619, 620 (5th

Cir. 1983); United States v. Elsoffer, 644 F.2d 357, 359 (5th Cir. 1981) (per curiam).

SIGNED this the 19th day of February, 2021.

____________________________________
KEITH F. GIBLIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-5-

File and source

File: 29.pdf
Size: 311,245 bytes
SHA-256: c9fbb2bc9cd3e81e99f27d7146b9b584b5aac13af442ae83478e4046210de6c4
Our copy: 29.pdf
Original: No public link identified.