United States v. Sandybell Fierro — Report and Recommendation on Guilty Plea (E.D. Ky., Dkt. 33)

Summary

A Report and Recommendation in United States v. Sandybell Fierro, No. 5:23-CR-00084-KKC-MAS-1, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, Doc #: 33, filed October 23, 2023, on referral from District Judge Karen K. Caldwell. It reports that on October 19, 2023 the defendant appeared for proceedings under Rule 11 on an expressed intent to plead guilty to Counts 1 and 3 of the Indictment, to stipulate to the forfeiture allegation and to consent to forfeiture of the property listed in it. The report recites findings on consent, the plea agreement at DE 29, competence and a factual basis. It recommends that the District Court accept the guilty plea, adjudge the defendant guilty of Counts 1 and 3 and adjudge the defendant's interest in the listed property forfeited, with objections due within THREE days.

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

Full text

Case: 5:23-cr-00084-KKC-MAS Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 1 of 3 - Page ID#: 91




                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                       EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
                             CENTRAL DIVISION
                                LEXINGTON

  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                    )
                                               )
                                               )
          Plaintiff,                           )
                                               )
  v.                                           )   NO. 5:23-CR-00084-KKC-MAS-1
                                               )
  SANDYBELL FIERRO,                            )
                                               )
         Defendant.                            )
                                               )
                                               )

                       REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

       On referral from District Judge Karen K. Caldwell, the Court conducted guilty

plea proceedings concerning Defendant Sandybell Fierro. On October 19, 2023,

Defendant appeared before the undersigned for proceedings under Rule 11, following

Defendant’s expressed intent to plead guilty to Counts 1 and 3 of the Indictment

[DE 31], to stipulate to the forfeiture allegation, and consent to the forfeiture of the

property listed in the forfeiture allegation of the Indictment.

       As established and particularly detailed on the record:

       1. After the Court informed Defendant of her right to plead in the presence of

          a United States District Judge, Defendant personally consented to plea

          proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge. Defendant further

          consented to the Magistrate Judge making a recommendation to the

          District Judge regarding whether to accept the plea. The consent occurred


                                           1
Case: 5:23-cr-00084-KKC-MAS Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 2 of 3 - Page ID#: 92




         orally and in writing and was under oath. [DE 31].         The consent was

         knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and occurred with counsel’s advice.

         The United States consented to the proceeding.

      2. There is a written plea agreement in the record at DE 29. The Court placed

         Defendant under oath and performed the full colloquy as required by

         Rule 11. As set forth in the record, after said colloquy, the Court found

         Defendant competent to plead. Additionally, after advising Defendant of

         all applicable rights, and assuring Defendant’s awareness of the nature of

         and all potential penalties applicable to the charges at issue, as well as the

         sentencing process, the Court further found that Defendant pleaded guilty

         in a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent fashion. Defendant acknowledged

         that she may be subject to the imposition of a money judgment and

         restitution payments.     Further, an adequate factual basis (from the

         colloquy) supported the plea as to each essential offense element for the

         applicable charge. The Court covered all areas and confirmed Defendant’s

         understanding of all matters required in the context by Rule 11, the

         criminal rules, and the United States Constitution.

      3. Further, and particularly based on Defendant’s expressed intent to plead

         guilty, the Court read and discussed the substance of Counts 1 and 3 of the

         Indictment and directly confirmed that Defendant and counsel had spent

         adequate time evaluating options and had sufficient information about the

         case to permit a complete assessment of strategy.



                                          2
Case: 5:23-cr-00084-KKC-MAS Doc #: 33 Filed: 10/23/23 Page: 3 of 3 - Page ID#: 93




      4. Based on the Court’s findings above, the Court RECOMMENDS that the

         District Court ACCEPT the guilty plea of Defendant, and ADJUDGE her

         guilty of Counts 1 and 3 of the Indictment. Based on the stipulation entered

         into in the plea agreement and at the rearraignment, the Court further

         RECOMMENDS the District Court ADJUDGE Defendant’s interest in

         the property listed in the forfeiture allegation of the Superseding

         Indictment FORFEITED.

                                   Right to Object

      Defendant has the right to object to this Recommendation and to secure

de novo review from the District Judge as to any matter to which she specifically

objects and seeks review. The parties agreed to an abbreviated objection period.

Within THREE days after being served with a copy of this Recommendation, a party

may serve and file specific written objections to any or all findings or

recommendations for determination, de novo, by the District Court. Failure to make

timely objection in the manner described, may, and normally will, result in waiver of

further appeal to or review by the District Court and Court of Appeals with respect

to the particular decision at issue. See Thomas v. Arn, 106 S. Ct. 466 (1985); United

States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981).

      Entered this 23rd of October, 2023.




                                            3


File and source

File

33-plea.pdf

Size

135,971 bytes

SHA-256

f0a007fa542d4883c365dbcd367263c6ee7bc161b0f1aef4f241378a97bf9942

Our copy

33-plea.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com