Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation re: Rule 11(c)(1)(B) Guilty Plea Hearing, United States of America v. Jesus Rodriguez-Maysonet, Case 3:24-cr-00006, Document 284, District of Puerto Rico

Summary

Report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Bruce J. McGiverin in the District of Puerto Rico, United States of America v. Jesus Rodriguez-Maysonet, Case 3:24-cr-00006-ADC-MDM, Document 284, filed 12/18/24, after a Rule 11(c)(1)(B) guilty plea hearing on December 12, 2024. Rodriguez-Maysonet entered a plea of guilty to Counts Fourteen and Fifteen of a January 16, 2024 indictment, which charge that on or about August 6, 2020 and February 18, 2021 he and other defendants used interstate wires to obtain PPP loans of $17,600 each, as part of a plan to defraud the Small Business Administration with false CARES Act relief applications. The report finds him competent and the plea knowing and voluntary, notes a maximum of twenty years and a $250,000.00 fine per count, and recommends that the court accept the plea.

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

Captured: 2026-09-26
Source site: www-govinfo-gov

Archived web capture. Preserved source — captured from www-govinfo-gov; archived 2026-09-26.

Full text

Case 3:24-cr-00006-ADC-MDM Document 284 Filed 12/18/24 Page 1 of 7

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
CRIMINAL NO. 24-006 (ADC)
JESUS RODRIGUEZ-MAYSONET [7],
Defendant.

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

I. Procedural Background
On January 16, 2024, defendant Jesus Rodriguez-Maysonet was charged in a multi-count
indictment. He agrees to plead guilty to Counts Fourteen, and Fifteen. Counts Fourteen and Fifteen
charge that from on or about April 2020, through approximately January 16, 2024, Mr. Rodriguez-
Maysonet 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 Fourteen charges that, on or about August 6, 2020, Mr. Rodriguez-
Maysonet 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 $17,600, all in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1343 and 2.
Count Fifteen charges that, on or about February 18, 2021, Mr. Rodriguez-Maysonet 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
Case 3:24-cr-00006-ADC-MDM Document 284 Filed 12/18/24 Page 2 of 7

Page 2
USA v. Jesus Rodriguez-Maysonet [7]
Cr. 24-006 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

interstate commerce to obtain a PPP loan in the amount of $17,600, all in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1343 and 2.
Defendant appeared before me, assisted by the court interpreter, on December 12, 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
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
Case 3:24-cr-00006-ADC-MDM Document 284 Filed 12/18/24 Page 3 of 7

Page 3
USA v. Jesus Rodriguez-Maysonet [7]
Cr. 24-006 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

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
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. Rodriguez-
Maysonet 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 Counts
Fourteen and Fifteen, 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 per count, 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. Rodriguez-Maysonet 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,
Case 3:24-cr-00006-ADC-MDM Document 284 Filed 12/18/24 Page 4 of 7

Page 4
USA v. Jesus Rodriguez-Maysonet [7]
Cr. 24-006 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

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. Rodriguez-Maysonet 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.
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,
Case 3:24-cr-00006-ADC-MDM Document 284 Filed 12/18/24 Page 5 of 7

Page 5
USA v. Jesus Rodriguez-Maysonet [7]
Cr. 24-006 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

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
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 Counts Fourteen and Fifteen 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 Counts Fourteen and
Fifteen, and the evidence the government had available to establish, in the event defendant elected
Case 3:24-cr-00006-ADC-MDM Document 284 Filed 12/18/24 Page 6 of 7

Page 6
USA v. Jesus Rodriguez-Maysonet [7]
Cr. 24-006 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

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.
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 Counts Fourteen and Fifteen 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, Jesus Rodriguez-
Maysonet, 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 charges are 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 Counts Fourteen and Fifteen 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).
Case 3:24-cr-00006-ADC-MDM Document 284 Filed 12/18/24 Page 7 of 7

Page 7
USA v. Jesus Rodriguez-Maysonet [7]
Cr. 24-006 (ADC)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

A sentencing hearing will be set before District Judge Aida Delgado-Colon.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 18th day of December, 2024.

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

File and source

File: uscourts-prd-3-24-cr-00006-1-pdf_3ff8d5f4527c93cf.pdf
Size: 279,706 bytes
SHA-256: 03b38a54ac30a0c464bd886f43fe59c3720fad8c7a8dcf51c6aa2eac1a744006
Our copy: uscourts-prd-3-24-cr-00006-1-pdf_3ff8d5f4527c93cf.pdf
Original: No public link identified.