United States District Court, D. Idaho
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
WAGAHOFF DALE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
October 24, 2017, Defendant RAFIEL T. MENDOZA appeared before
the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to enter a
change of plea pursuant to a written plea agreement (Diet.
8). The Defendant executed a waiver of the right to have the
presiding United States District Judge take his change of
plea. Thereafter, the Court explained to the Defendant the
nature of the charges contained in the Indictment (Dkt. 1),
the maximum penalties applicable, his Constitutional rights,
the impact that the Sentencing Guidelines will have, and that
the District Judge will not be bound by the agreement of the
parties as to the penalty to be imposed.
Court, having conducted the change of plea hearing and having
inquired of the Defendant, counsel, and the government, finds
there is a factual basis for the Defendant's guilty plea,
that he entered it voluntarily and with full knowledge of the
consequences, and that the plea should be accepted. The
undersigned also ordered a presentence investigation to be
conducted and a report prepared by the United States
the offense to which Defendant entered his guilty plea is an
offense in a case described in subparagraph (C) of subsection
(f)(1) of Section 3142 in Title 18 of the United States Code,
subjecting Defendant to detention upon a finding of guilt
under Section 3143(a)(2), the undersigned considered whether,
under Section 3145(c), exceptional reasons were clearly shown
as to why Defendant's detention pending imposition of
sentencing would not be appropriate.
case, Defendant had his initial appearance on the Indictment
on June 14, 2017, before the undersigned Magistrate Judge. At
that time, the Government requested detention, and the Court
entered a temporary order of detention. (Dkt. 79.) A
detention hearing was held on June 16, 2017, and the Court
denied the Government's amended motion for detention.
Defendant was released subject to Special Conditions of
Release. (Dkt. 81.)
then, Defendant has complied with all conditions of pretrial
release. He also has complied with all conditions of
supervised probation in connection with a 2016 state
conviction for which he may be eligible for a withheld
judgment if he continues to be successful on probation.
During his pretrial supervision, there have been no positive
drug test results, and Defendant has maintained full-time
employment. Defendant's supervisor has spoken highly of
Defendant's job performance. Further, Defendant has
maintained his residence with his fiance and his young son.
According to the Defendant's proffer, his fiance is
scheduled for carpel tunnel surgery on November 7, 2017, so
Defendant's assistance with care of their 17-month old
son during her period of recovery and associated lifting
restrictions will be necessitated when he is not at work.
to the Government, there is no reason to believe Defendant is
at an enhanced risk of flight or danger to the community at
this time, and Pretrial Services has recommended that
Defendant be removed from the location monitoring program
based upon his compliance with pretrial release conditions.
However, the Court finds removal of the location monitoring
condition would be inconsistent with the mandatory detention
provision in Section 3143(a)(2), although pretrial
services' recommendation reflects that the combination of
conditions set on June 17, 2017, should continue to assure
that Defendant's release pending sentencing will not pose
a danger to the community.
consideration of the totality of the circumstances presented
in this case, including the stringent conditions of release
and the need for Defendant's financial and personal
support to his family at this time, and upon finding
Defendant is unlikely to flee or pose a danger to the
community if release is continued, the Court will recommend
release be continued under the conditions previously imposed,
including location monitoring. The Court finds that exception
reasons have been clearly shown by Defendant that detention
pending imposition of sentencing would not be appropriate.
THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:
1) The District Court accept Defendant RAFIEL T.
MENDOZA's plea of guilty to Count Two of the Indictment
2) The District Court order forfeiture consistent with
Defendant RAFIEL T. MENDOZA's admission to the Criminal
Forfeiture allegation in the Indictment (Dkt. 1) and the Plea
Agreement (Dkt. 86),
3) The District Court GRANT, at the
appropriate time, the United States' motion to dismiss
Count One of the Indictment (Dkt. 1) as to Defendant, and
4) The District Court continue Defendant's release
pending sentencing, subject to the standard and additional
conditions of release previously imposed in the Order Setting