Information — No. 3:23-cr-00195 (Dkt. 859, D.P.R.)

Summary

A Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation re: Rule 11(c)(1)(B) guilty plea hearing, Document 859, filed June 27, 2024 in United States v. Alexis X. Pantoja Diaz [8], 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 Eleven, which charges a scheme involving applications for COVID-19 relief funds under the CARES Act, including a PPP loan in the amount of $19,283 on or about April 28, 2021. After a hearing on June 26, 2024, the report recommends that the court accept the guilty plea and adjudge him guilty as to Count Eleven. It is signed by United States Magistrate Judge Bruce J. McGiverin.

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. 859, D.P.R.).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/information-no-3-23-cr-00195-dkt-859-d-p-r-27a97c723f/, SHA-256 22106b195f1780422a9452cb9fea74c91876e6775a578f2424aec14a2d307d68.

Full text

Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC-HRV Document 859 Filed 06/27/24 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)
ALEXIS X. PANTOJA DIAZ [8],
Defendant.

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

I. Procedural Background
On May 11, 2023, defendant Alexis X. Pantoja Diaz was charged in a multi-count
indictment. He agrees to plead guilty to Count Eleven. Count Eleven charges that from on or about
April 2020, through approximately May 11, 2023, Mr. Pantoja Diaz 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 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, Count Seven charges that, on or about April 28, 2021, Mr. Pantoja Diaz and
other defendants 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 $19,283, all in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1343 and 2.
Defendant appeared before me, assisted by the court interpreter, on June 26, 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). He was advised of the purpose of the hearing and placed under oath with
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC-HRV Document 859 Filed 06/27/24 Page 2 of 6

Page 2
USA v. Alexis X. Pantoja-Diaz [8]
Cr. 23-195 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

instructions that his answers must be truthful lest he would subject himself to possible charges of
perjury or making a false statement.
II. Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge
Defendant 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, 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 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 charges with his counsel and was
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC-HRV Document 859 Filed 06/27/24 Page 3 of 6

Page 3
USA v. Alexis X. Pantoja-Diaz [8]
Cr. 23-195 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

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. Pantoja Diaz
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: as to Count Eleven,
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 he
understood the maximum penalties and the potential consequences of the guilty plea.
C. Plea Agreement
Mr. Pantoja Diaz was shown a document titled “Plea Agreement,” which is part of the
record, and identified his initials and his signatures. He confirmed that he had the opportunity to
read and discuss the Plea Agreement with his attorney before he signed it, that his attorney
explained the document, 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. Mr. Pantoja Diaz 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 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 withdraw his guilty plea, and impose a sentence
that is more severe than the defendant might anticipate.
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC-HRV Document 859 Filed 06/27/24 Page 4 of 6

Page 4
USA v. Alexis X. Pantoja-Diaz [8]
Cr. 23-195 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

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
recommendations he 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 his 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 his 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 he 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 his right to appeal the judgement and sentence if the court
accepts 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 before a judge
sitting without a jury if the court and the government so agree; that at trial he would be presumed
innocent and the government would have to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; that he
would have the right to 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 on his behalf. He was further
informed that if he decided not to testify or put on evidence at trial, his failure to do so could not
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC-HRV Document 859 Filed 06/27/24 Page 5 of 6

Page 5
USA v. Alexis X. Pantoja-Diaz [8]
Cr. 23-195 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

be used against him, and that at trial the jury must return a unanimous verdict before he 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 he will be waiving or giving up the
rights that the court explained. The defendant’s attorney attested that he explained these rights to
his client and believed that the defendant understood his 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 his guilty plea, if accepted, may deprive him 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 he understood these consequences of his guilty plea.
E. Factual Basis for the Guilty Plea
Defendant was read in open court Count Eleven 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 Eleven 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 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 him a thing of value in exchange for his plea. He acknowledged that no one had made
any 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.
Case 3:23-cr-00195-ADC-HRV Document 859 Filed 06/27/24 Page 6 of 6

Page 6
USA v. Alexis X. Pantoja-Diaz [8]
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 Eleven 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, Alexis X. Pantoja Diaz,
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 Eleven 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 27th day of June, 2024.

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

File and source

File: 859.pdf
Size: 279,171 bytes
SHA-256: 22106b195f1780422a9452cb9fea74c91876e6775a578f2424aec14a2d307d68
Our copy: 859.pdf
Original: No public link identified.