Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Magwood

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Harrisonburg Division

January 5, 2018



          Joel C. Hoppe United States Magistrate Judge

         This case was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for the purpose of conducting a felony guilty plea hearing. This report and recommendation is submitted to the presiding district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). The defendant waived his right to plead before a United States District Judge and consented to proceed before the undersigned magistrate judge.

         On January 5, 2018, the defendant appeared with counsel before the magistrate judge, who personally addressed the defendant and admonished him pursuant to Rule 11(b)(1)(A)-(O) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Discussing the district judge's role of determining a sentence, the Court explained to the defendant that the sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines, which are advisory, not mandatory, would not be determined until a presentence report is written and a sentencing hearing held, that the district judge had the authority to impose a sentence more or less severe than called for in the guidelines, and that the sentence the defendant receives may be different than any estimate given by his attorney. The Court also admonished the defendant that if the district judge does not accept a recommendation set forth in the plea agreement, the defendant will still be bound by his plea and will have no right to withdraw it. The defendant stated that he understood the Court's admonishments. The attorney for the Government stated the essential terms of the plea agreement, which has been filed with the Court, and the defendant and his counsel agreed that those in fact were the terms of the agreement. The defendant further stated that he had read the plea agreement and understood it. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that the defendant understands the charge to which he is pleading guilty and that his plea was knowingly made. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1).

         The Court also addressed the defendant personally as to his competency to plead and the voluntariness of his plea, specifically whether it resulted from force, threats, or promises other than promises made in a plea agreement or in open court.[1] Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(2). Based on this discussion, the undersigned found the defendant to be sufficiently competent to enter a plea, that he desired to plead guilty, and that his plea was voluntary.

         The government presented a statement of facts, which has been filed with the Court, regarding the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty. The defendant testified that he read the statement of facts and discussed it with his attorney. He agreed that the statement of facts was accurate and did not contest those facts. The statement of facts presents the following:

         The defendant was part of the “Chris” conspiracy, whose members distributed one kilogram of a substance containing heroin each week. The conspiracy operated out of Baltimore, Maryland beginning as early as 2013. Antwan Cottman, Sheldon Berry, Antwan Lucas, and Marcus Henderson were the principal suppliers. A second component of this conspiracy consisted of users/distributors from the Front Royal area who acquired heroin from the “Chris” conspiracy in Baltimore then used and re-distributed it.

         From July 2015 to July 2016, the defendant used drivers to pick up heroin for him from the “Chris” conspiracy in Baltimore, he obtained heroin himself from Cottman and Berry, and he used runners to sell that heroin in Front Royal. The total amount of heroin that the defendant obtained was in the range of 855 to 1365 grams.

         During the hearing, the defendant agreed that the “Chris” conspiracy involved more than 1000 grams of heroin and that amount was reasonably foreseeable to him.

         The undersigned finds that these facts provide a sufficient basis for the defendant's guilty plea to the charges of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 1000 grams or more of heroin. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3).

         The defendant pleaded guilty to the offenses of knowingly and willfully conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 1000 grams of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (referencing 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)), as charged in Count One of the Indictment.

         The magistrate judge finds the following:

1. The defendant's guilty plea was taken by the undersigned subject to the acceptance of the plea and sentencing by the assigned district judge and after the defendant consulted with an attorney and executed oral and written waivers;
2. The defendant fully understands the nature of the charge and ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.