Information — No. 3:23-cr-00195 (Dkt. 1264, D.P.R.)

Summary

A Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation re: Rule 11(c)(1)(B) guilty plea hearing, Document 1264, filed October 23, 2024 in United States v. Alex Gotay-Concepcion [6], Criminal No. 23-195(ADC) (Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC-HRV), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. It states that the defendant was charged on May 11, 2023 in a multi-count indictment and agrees to plead guilty to Count Nine, which alleges a wire fraud scheme involving applications for COVID-19 relief funds under the CARES Act, with a PPP wire dated May 6, 2021 in the amount of $20,604. After a hearing on October 18, 2024, the report recommends that the court accept the guilty plea and adjudge him guilty as to Count Nine. It is signed by United States Magistrate Judge Marshal D. Morgan.

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

“Information — No. 3:23-cr-00195 (Dkt. 1264, D.P.R.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/information-no-3-23-cr-00195-dkt-1264-d-p-r-39286230f2/, SHA-256 a9b5052a817e6709290c11213abee5374e9a3c3e6b05ed901e7168b486fdb388.

Full text

Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC-HRV Document 1264 Filed 10/23/24 Page 1 of 6

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CRIMINAL NO. 23-195(ADC)
[6] ALEX GOTAY-CONCEPCION,
Defendant.

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

I. Procedural Background
On May 11, 2023, defendant Alex Gotay-Concepcion was charged in a multi-count
indictment. He agrees to plead guilty to Count Nine.
Count Nine alleges that from in or about April 2020, through approximately May 11, 2023,
in the District of Puerto Rico, and elsewhere, Alex Gotay-Concepcion, aiding and abetting others,
knowingly devised, and intended to devise, a scheme and artifice to defraud the United States
Small Business Administration, 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 COVID-19 relief funds issued under the authority of the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act.
Specifically, on or about the date set forth below, the defendant, aiding and abetting others,
for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice to defraud, 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, as described below, in relation to fraudulent
applications for COVID-19 relief funds:
Count Date of Wire Description Type Amount
Transmission
9 May 6, 2021 Loan number PPP $20,604
ending in 8903
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC-HRV Document 1264 Filed 10/23/24 Page 2 of 6

USA v. [6] Alex Gotay-Concepcion Page 2
Cr. 23-195(ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA
Defendant appeared before me, assisted by the court interpreter, on October 18, 2024,
because 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). He was advised of the purpose of the hearing and placed under oath with
instructions that his answers must be truthful lest he subject himself to possible charges of perjury
or making a false statement.

II. Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge
Defendant was provided with a Waiver of Right to Trial by Jury form, which he signed. 1
He was advised of his right to hold all proceedings, including the change of plea hearing, before a
district court judge. He received an explanation of the differences between the scope of jurisdiction
and functions of a district judge and a magistrate judge. He was informed that if he 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. 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. Hernandez-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
F2d 1237, 1244 (1st Cir. 1991)).

1
The form entitled Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge in a Felony Case
for Pleading Guilty (Rule 11, Fed.R.Crim.P.) and Waiver of Jury Trial, signed and consented by both
parties is made part of the record.
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC-HRV Document 1264 Filed 10/23/24 Page 3 of 6

USA v. [6] Alex Gotay-Concepcion Page 3
Cr. 23-195(ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

A. Competence to Enter a Guilty Plea
This magistrate judge questioned the defendant about his age, education, employment,
history of any treatment for mental illness or addiction, use of any medication, drugs, or alcohol,
and his understanding of the purpose of the hearing, all in order to ascertain his capacity to
understand, answer and comprehend the change of plea colloquy. The court confirmed that the
defendant received the indictment and fully discussed the charge with his attorney and was
satisfied with the advice and representation he received. The court further inquired whether
defendant’s counsel or counsel for the government had any doubt as to his capacity to plead,
receiving answers from both that the defendant was competent to enter a plea. After considering
the defendant’s responses, and observing his demeanor, a finding was made that Mr. Gotay-
Concepcion was competent to plead and fully aware of the purpose of the hearing.
B. Maximum Penalties
Upon questioning, the defendant expressed his understanding of the maximum penalties
prescribed by statute for the offense to which he was pleading guilty, namely: a term of
imprisonment of 30 years, a fine not to exceed $1 million dollars, and a supervised release term of
not more than 5 years, in addition to any term of incarceration.
For purposes of the Plea Agreement, the parties agree that the defendant will be held
accountable under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 for wire fraud that (a) does not affect a financial institution
or (b) occur in relation to, or involve any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred,
disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency, which
carries a maximum statutory penalty of not more than 20 years’ imprisonment, a fine of not more
than $250,000, and a supervised release term of not more than 3 years. The defendant also
understood that a Special Monetary Assessment of $100.00 would be imposed, to be deposited in
the Crime Victim Fund, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3013(a). The court
explained the nature of supervised release and the consequences of revocation. The defendant
indicated that he understood the maximum penalties for Count Nine and the potential
consequences of the guilty plea.
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC-HRV Document 1264 Filed 10/23/24 Page 4 of 6

USA v. [6] Alex Gotay-Concepcion Page 4
Cr. 23-195(ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

C. Plea Agreement
Mr. Gotay-Concepcion was shown his plea agreement, and the plea agreement supplement,
which are part of the record, and identified his initials and signatures. He confirmed that he had
the opportunity to read and discuss the plea agreement with his attorney before he signed it, that it
represented the entirety of his understanding with the government, that he understood its terms,
and that no one had made any other or different promises or assurances to induce him to plead
guilty.
The defendant was then admonished, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B) and
expressed his 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 to withdraw his guilty plea and impose a
sentence that is more severe than the defendant might anticipate. The defendant was specifically
informed that the court, after considering the applicable Sentencing Guidelines, could impose a
sentence different from any estimate in the plea agreement or provided by his attorney, and that
the court had the 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 he or the government may have
the right to appeal the sentence the court imposes, but that pursuant to the plea agreement the
defendant will waive his right to appeal both his sentence and his conviction if the court adopts
the plea agreement and sentences him according to its terms and conditions.
D. Waiver of Constitutional Rights
The defendant was specifically advised that he has the right to persist in a plea of not guilty,
and if he does so persist that he has the right to a speedy and public trial by jury, or trial before a
judge sitting without a jury if the court and the government so agree; that at trial he would be
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC-HRV Document 1264 Filed 10/23/24 Page 5 of 6

USA v. [6] Alex Gotay-Concepcion Page 5
Cr. 23-195(ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

presumed innocent and the government would have to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt;
that he would have the right to the assistance of counsel for his defense, and if he could not afford
an attorney the court would appoint one to represent him throughout all stages of the proceedings;
that at trial he would have the right to hear and cross examine the government’s witnesses, the
right to decline to testify unless he voluntarily elected to do so, and the right to the issuance of
subpoenas or compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses to testify. He was further
informed that if he decided not to testify or put on evidence at trial, the failure to do so could not
be used against him, and that at trial the jury must return a unanimous verdict before he could be
found guilty or not guilty.
The defendant specifically acknowledged understanding these rights and understanding
that by entering a plea of guilty there would be no trial and he will be waiving or giving up the
rights that the court explained.
The defendant was informed that parole has been abolished and that any sentence of
imprisonment must be served, and that his guilty plea may result in loss of important 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 he understood these consequences of the guilty plea.
E. Factual Basis for the Guilty Plea
Defendant was read in open court Count Nine 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 defendant admitted to facts constituting all of the elements of the
offense charged in Count Nine and that 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.
F. Voluntariness
The defendant indicated that he was not being induced to plead guilty but was entering
such a plea freely and voluntarily because in fact he is guilty, and that no one had threatened him
or offered a thing of value in exchange for his plea. He acknowledged that no one had made any
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC-HRV Document 1264 Filed 10/23/24 Page 6 of 6

USA v. [6] Alex Gotay-Concepcion Page 6
Cr. 23-195(ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

different or other promises in exchange for his guilty plea, other than the recommendations set
forth in the plea agreement. Throughout the hearing the defendant was able to consult with his
attorney.
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 Nine 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, Alex Gotay-Concepcion
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 his guilty plea. Therefore, I
recommend that the court accept the guilty plea and that the defendant be adjudged guilty as to
Count Nine 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 by the Presiding Judge, Aida M. Delgado-Colon.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 18th day of October 2024.

s/Marshal D. Morgan
MARSHAL D. MORGAN
United States Magistrate Judge

File and source

File: 1264.pdf
Size: 261,643 bytes
SHA-256: a9b5052a817e6709290c11213abee5374e9a3c3e6b05ed901e7168b486fdb388
Our copy: 1264.pdf
Original: No public link identified.