Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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. Boyd

United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Clarksburg

September 11, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL A. BOYD, JR., Defendant.

          KEELEY JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY IN FELONY CASE

          MICHAEL JOHN ALOI, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge by the District Court for purposes of conducting proceedings pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 (ECF. No. 27). Defendant, Michael A. Boyd, Jr., in person and by Federal Public Defender, L. Richard Walker, appeared before me on September 11, 2017. The Government appeared by Assistant United States Attorney, Traci M. Cook. The Court determined that Defendant was prepared to enter a plea of "Guilty" to Count Two of the Indictment.

         The Court proceeded with the Rule 11 proceeding by first placing Defendant under oath and inquiring into Defendant's competency. The Court determined Defendant was competent to proceed with the Rule 11 plea hearing and cautioned and examined Defendant under oath concerning all matters mentioned in Rule 11.

         The Court next inquired of Defendant concerning his understanding of his right to have an Article III Judge hear the entry of his guilty plea and his understanding of the difference between an Article III Judge and a Magistrate Judge. Defendant thereafter stated in open court that he voluntarily waived his right to have an Article III Judge hear his plea and voluntarily consented to the undersigned Magistrate Judge hearing his plea. Defendant tendered to the Court a written Waiver of Article III Judge and Consent to Enter Guilty Plea before Magistrate Judge. The waiver and consent was signed by Defendant, countersigned by Defendant's counsel, and concurred by the signature of the Assistant United States Attorney.

         Upon consideration of the sworn testimony of Defendant, as well as the representations of his counsel and the representations of the Government, the Court finds that the oral and written waiver of an Article III Judge and consent to enter a guilty plea before a Magistrate Judge was freely and voluntarily given. Additionally, the Court finds that the written waiver and consent was freely and voluntarily executed by Defendant Michael A. Boyd, Jr. only after having had his rights fully explained to him and having a full understanding of those rights through consultation with his counsel, as well as through questioning by the Court. The Court ORDERED the written Waiver and Consent to Enter Guilty Plea before a Magistrate Judge filed and made part of the record.

         Thereafter, the Court determined that Defendant's plea was pursuant to a written plea agreement, and asked the Government to tender the original to the Court. The Court asked counsel for the Government if the agreement was the sole agreement offered to Defendant. The Government responded that it was, and counsel for Defendant confirmed the same. The Court asked counsel for the Government to summarize the written plea agreement. Counsel for Defendant and Defendant stated that the agreement as summarized by counsel for the Government was correct and complied with their understanding of the agreement. The undersigned further inquired of Defendant regarding his understanding of the written plea agreement. Defendant stated he understood the terms of the written plea agreement and also stated that it contained the whole of his agreement with the Government and no promises or representations were made to him by the Government other than those terms contained in the written plea agreement. The Court ORDERED the written plea agreement filed and made part of the record.

         The undersigned then reviewed with Defendant Count Two of the Indictment and the elements the Government would have to prove, charging him with Possession with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Base in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1). Subsequently, Defendant Michael A. Boyd, Jr. pled GUILTY to the charge contained in Count Two of the Indictment. However, before accepting Defendant's plea, the undersigned inquired of Defendant's understanding of the charges against him, inquired of Defendant's understanding of the consequences of him pleading guilty to the charges, and obtained the factual basis for Defendant's plea.

         The Court heard the testimony of Lt. Brian Keith Purkey with the Bridgeport Police Department and Greater Harrison County Drug Task Force. Lt. Purkey testified that on September 30, 2016, he received a call from Officer Cam Golden that a suspicious activity call was placed by staff at the Best Western located at 100 Lodgeville Road, Bridgeport, WV 26330. Lt. Purkey arrived at the hotel, located room 215, and upon entering saw large quantities of drugs laid out on the bed by other officers. During his investigation, it became known that Defendant had rented and entered room 215 on September 28, 2016, with another male, William Washington Moore. On September 29, 2016, hotel staff realized that there was insufficient payment on the personal credit card used by Defendant and de-obligated the room, essentially removing the reservation for the three day stay Defendant had originally requested. On September 30, 2016, Defendant returned to the room to find that he could not access it due to nonpayment. After several attempts to enter room 215 by Defendant, hotel staff became suspicious and entered the room to find several bags stashed under the TV stand in the room. Upon looking into one of the bags, hotel staff saw what they believed to be drugs and called 911. Lt. Purkey verified Defendant was the person who rented and entered the room through video surveillance. Lt. Purkey also verified that a Taurus revolver pistol, large amounts of cash in U.S. currency, heroin, methamphetamine, and crack cocaine were located in room 215 on September 30, 2016.

         Neither counsel for Defendant nor Defendant had any questions for the witness. Defendant stated he heard, understood, and did not disagree with the testimony of the Government's witness. Additionally, Defendant provided a factual basis for the commission of the offense. The undersigned Magistrate Judge concludes the offense charged in Count Two of the Indictment is supported by an independent basis in fact concerning each of the essential elements of such offense, and that independent basis is provided by Lt. Brian Keith Purkey's testimony.

         The undersigned then reviewed with Defendant the statutory penalties applicable to an individual adjudicated guilty of the felony charge contained in Count Two of the Indictment and the impact of the sentencing guidelines on sentencing in general. From said review, the undersigned Magistrate Judge determined Defendant understood the nature of the charges pending against him and that the possible statutory maximum sentence which could be imposed upon his conviction or adjudication of guilty on Count Two was a term of imprisonment of not more than twenty (20) years. The undersigned further determined Defendant understood a fine of not more than $1, 000, 000.00 could be imposed, both fine and imprisonment could be imposed, he would be subject to a period of at least of three (3) years of supervised release, and the Court would impose a special mandatory assessment of $100.00 for the felony conviction payable on or before the date of sentencing. Defendant also understood that his sentence could be increased if he had a prior firearm offense, violent felony conviction, or prior drug conviction. He also understood he might be required by the Court to pay the costs of his incarceration, supervision, and probation.

         The undersigned also informed Defendant whether he understood that by pleading guilty he was forfeiting other rights such as right to vote, right to serve on a jury, and the right to legally possess a firearm.

         Additionally, the undersigned asked Defendant whether he understood that if he were not a citizen of the United States, by pleading guilty to a felony charge he would be subject to deportation at the conclusion of any sentence; that he would be denied future entry into the United States; and that he would be denied citizenship if he ever applied for it. Defendant stated that he understood.

         The undersigned also reviewed with Defendant his waiver of appellate and collateral attack rights. Defendant understood that he was waiving his right to appeal his conviction and sentence to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on any ground whatsoever, including those grounds set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3742. Defendant further understood that under his plea agreement, he was waiving his right to challenge his conviction and sentence in any post-conviction proceeding, including any proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant understood, however, that he was reserving the right to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct that he learned about after the plea hearing and agreed that he was unaware of any ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct in his ...


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.