United States District Court, D. New Hampshire
Anthony Nehme, Esq. Bjorn Lange, Esq. Shaun Khojayan, Esq.
Suzanne Amy Spencer, Esq. Robert M. Kinsella, AUSA U.S.
Marshal U.S. Probation
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT DEFENDANT'S
K. JOHNSTONE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
February 24, 2016, defendant Einstin Antonio Cantos
("Cantos") was indicted, inter alia, with False
Statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) (2) .
arraignment and change of plea hearing was held on September
1, 2017. Cantos was present, represented by retained counsel,
Anthony Nehme. Defendant 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.
Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge
filed a written consent to have the Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11 proceedings before the magistrate judge. (Doc.
no. 12). On September 1, 2017, while assisted by counsel, the
defendant, by consent appeared before me in order to enter a
plea of guilty as to Count I of the Indictment as agreed to
under the terms of his plea agreement. At the September 1
hearing, the parties consented to the delegation of the
taking of his guilty plea to the magistrate judge and the
Defendant unequivocally restated his consent to have the plea
hearing before this magistrate judge. United States v.
Williams, 23 F.3d 629 (2nd. Cir. 1994), cert, denied, 513
U.S. 1045 (1994) (where defendant consented to the magistrate
judge taking his guilty plea to a felony, delegation to the
magistrate judge did not contravene Article III of the Unites
States Constitution). Cantos verified his signature on the
consent to proceed (Doc. no. 12).
Proceedings Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rule of Criminal
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the
acceptance of guilty pleas to federal criminal violations.
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 F.2d 1237, 1244 (1st Cir. 1991)).
Competence to Enter a Guilty Plea
magistrate judge questioned the defendant about his age;
education; literacy; history of any treatment for mental
illness or addiction; and use of any medication, drugs, or
alcohol 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. The defendant
confirmed that he was satisfied with the representation and
advice given to him by his attorney and that he had
sufficient time to discuss the case and guilty plea with his
counsel before the September 1, 2017 hearing. The court
further inquired whether the Defendant's counsel had any
doubt as to his capacity to plead, to which counsel responded
that there was no doubt. After considering the
defendant's responses and observing his demeanor, a
finding was made that Cantos was competent to plead and fully
aware of the purpose of the hearing.
Factual Basis for the Guilty Plea
defendant confirmed receipt of a copy of the Indictment and
was provided with an explanation of the elements of the
offense charged therein and which explained what the
prosecution must provide beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain
a conviction. At the hearing, the government presented to
this magistrate judge and to the defendant a summary of the
facts the government would be able to prove, in the event the
defendant elected to go to trial, to establish the
defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The
defendant acknowledged that the facts ...