Case 3:22-cr-00310-ADC Document 73 Filed 04/10/25 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`ALEXANDER MIRANDA RODRIGUEZ,
`Defendant.
`
`
`Criminal No. 22-310 (ADC)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`ON RULE 11(c)(1)(B) CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING
`
`
`
`Procedural Background
`I.
`On July 13, 2022, Defendant Alexander Miranda Rodríguez was charged by a Grand Jury
`in a five-count indictment. Defendant agrees to plead guilty to Counts Two and Three of the
`Indictment.
`Count Two of the Indictment charges that, on or about July 7, 2022, in the District of Puerto
`Rico and within the jurisdiction of this Court, Alexander Miranda Rodríguez, did knowingly
`possess a firearm— that is, one Mini Draco pistol, 7.62 x 39 mm caliber (bearing serial number
`ROA21PMD-25060); and one Glock 27 Gen 5 pistol, .40 caliber (bearing serial number
`BTSS176)— in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime for which he may be prosecuted in a court
`of the United States, that is, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (possession with intent to distribute a controlled
`substance). All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
`Count Three of the Indictment charges that, on or about July 7, 2022, in the District of
`Puerto Rico and within the jurisdiction of this Court, Alexander Miranda Rodríguez, did
`knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cr-00310-ADC Document 73 Filed 04/10/25 Page 2 of 7
`
`USA v. Miranda-Rodríguez
`Criminal No. 22-310 (ADC)
`Report and Recommendation on Guilty Plea
`
`
`detectable amount of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
`841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C).
`On March 21, 2025, Defendant moved for a change of plea. Docket No. 64. The United
`States of America and Defendant entered into a Plea Agreement. Docket No. 70. Pursuant to the
`plea agreement, Defendant agreed to plead guilty to Counts Two and Three of the Indictment. On
`April 4, 2025, Defendant appeared before this Court for a change of plea hearing pursuant to Rule
`11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See United States v. Woodward, 387 F. 3d. 1329
`(11th Cir. 2004) (holding that a magistrate judge may, with the defendant’s consent, conduct a Rule
`11 change of plea hearing). Defendant was advised of the purpose of the hearing and placed under
`oath with instructions that his answers must be truthful because he could otherwise be charged
`with perjury.
`Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge
`II.
`Defendant was advised of his right to hold all proceedings, including this change of plea
`hearing, before a district court judge. An explanation of the differences between the scope of
`jurisdiction and functions of a district judge and a magistrate judge was provided. Defendant was
`provided with a Waiver of Right to Trial by Jury, which he signed prior to the hearing. Docket No.
`69. Defendant validated his signature and informed that his attorney had explained the document
`before signing the same. The Court found that Defendant voluntarily consented to proceed before
`a magistrate judge and approved Defendant’s consent.
`III.
`Proceedings Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
`Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure governs the acceptance of guilty pleas
`
`to federal criminal violations. Pursuant to Rule 11, 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.
`Hernández 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.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cr-00310-ADC Document 73 Filed 04/10/25 Page 3 of 7
`
`USA v. Miranda-Rodríguez
`Criminal No. 22-310 (ADC)
`Report and Recommendation on Guilty Plea
`
`
`
`Competence to Enter a Guilty Plea
`A.
`The Court questioned Defendant about his age, education, history of any treatment for
`mental illness or addiction, use of any medication, drugs or alcohol, and his understanding of the
`purpose of the hearing, to ascertain his capacity to understand, answer and comprehend the change
`of plea colloquy. The Court confirmed that Defendant received the Indictment and fully discussed
`the charges with his attorney, and that he was satisfied with the advice and representation he
`received. The Court further inquired whether Defendant’s counsel or counsel for the Government
`had any reservations as to Defendant’s competency to plead, receiving answers that Defendant
`was competent to enter a plea. After considering Defendant’s responses, and observing his
`demeanor, the Court found that Defendant was competent to plead and fully aware of the purpose
`of the hearing.
`Plea Agreement
`B.
`Defendant was shown his plea agreement, including the stipulation of facts, and he
`identified his initials and signatures. Defendant confirmed that he had the opportunity to read and
`discuss the plea agreement and plea agreement supplement with his attorney, that his attorney
`explained both the plea agreement and the plea agreement supplement before he signed the
`documents, that the plea agreement represented the entirety of his understanding with the
`Government, that he understood the terms of the plea agreement and plea agreement supplement,
`and that no one had made any other or different promises or assurances to induce him to plead
`guilty. Counsel for the Government described the essential terms of the plea agreement, including
`stipulations pertaining to the Sentencing Guidelines and any sentencing recommendations.
`Counsel for the defense agreed with the Government’s description of the terms and
`recommendations, and so did Defendant.
`Defendant was then admonished, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
`11(c)(1)(B), that the terms of the plea agreement are mere recommendations to the Court, and that
`the District Judge who will preside over the sentencing hearing can reject the recommendations
`without permitting him to withdraw his guilty plea. And that the District Judge could impose a
`sentence that is more severe than what he might anticipate. Defendant expressed full understanding
`of the foregoing and confirmed that he was fully aware that, if the District Judge does not follow
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cr-00310-ADC Document 73 Filed 04/10/25 Page 4 of 7
`
`USA v. Miranda-Rodríguez
`Criminal No. 22-310 (ADC)
`Report and Recommendation on Guilty Plea
`
`
`the recommendations in the plea agreement, he will not be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty
`if he receives a sentence that is higher than expected.
`Voluntariness
`C.
`In considering the plea agreement, Defendant acknowledged that the plea agreement
`contains all the promises and agreements that he made with the Government and that no one made
`any other or different promise or assurance of any kind in exchange for his guilty plea, other than
`the recommendations set forth in the plea agreement. Defendant indicated that he was not being
`induced to plead guilty, that he was entering such plea freely and voluntarily because he is guilty,
`and that no one has threatened him or offered a thing of value in exchange for his plea. Defendant
`understood that the offenses to which he is pleading guilty are a felonies and that, if the plea is
`accepted, he will be adjudged guilty of those offenses, and that such adjudication may deprive him
`of valuable civil rights, such as the right to vote in a federal election, the right to hold public office,
`the right to serve on a jury, and the right to possess a firearm. Defendant understood those to be
`consequences of pleading guilty.
`Throughout the hearing, Defendant was free to consult with his attorney or to seek
`clarification from the Court. He confirmed that his agreement to plead guilty was made knowingly
`and voluntarily.
`D. Maximum Penalties
`Defendant expressed his understanding of the statutory maximum penalties for the offenses
`to which he was pleading guilty. Count Two of the Indictment carries a term of imprisonment of
`not less than five (5) years consecutive and up to life, a fine not to exceed two hundred fifty
`thousand dollars ($250,000.00), and a term of supervised release of not more than five (5) years.
`Count Three of the Indictment carries a term of imprisonment of not more than twenty (20) years,
`a fine not to exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000.00), and a term of supervised release of not
`less than three (3) years. In addition, a Special Monetary Assessment of one hundred dollars
`($100.00) per count of conviction would be imposed, to be deposited to the Criminal Victims Fund
`pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3013(a). Defendant indicated that he understood
`the maximum penalties for Counts Two and Three of the Indictment, that the offenses charged are
`felonies, and the potential consequences of the guilty plea, such as the deprivation of certain
`valuable rights.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cr-00310-ADC Document 73 Filed 04/10/25 Page 5 of 7
`
`USA v. Miranda-Rodríguez
`Criminal No. 22-310 (ADC)
`Report and Recommendation on Guilty Plea
`
`
`
`The Court then explained the nature of supervised release and the consequences of
`violating the conditions of supervised release. Specifically, Defendant was informed that, if
`supervised release is revoked, he may be required to serve an additional term of imprisonment up
`to the full term of supervised release originally imposed by the Court. And that, if he is currently
`on supervised release in a different case, his plea of guilty, if accepted, could result in negative
`consequences, such as the revocation of his supervised release in that other case. The Court further
`advised Defendant that in certain cases the Court may also order, or be required to order, that he
`pay restitution to any victim of the offenses, and the Court may also require him to forfeit certain
`property to the Government, as provided in the forfeiture provision of the plea agreement.
`Defendant was also informed that any sentence imposed in this case could be imposed to run
`concurrently or consecutively to any sentence he may be currently serving in another case.
`Sentencing Procedure
`E.
`Defendant was informed that, in determining his sentence, the District Judge is required to
`consider, but not necessarily follow, the Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant confirmed that he
`discussed with his attorney how the Sentencing Guidelines might apply to this case. Defendant
`was specifically informed that, after considering the applicable Sentencing Guidelines, the Court
`could impose a sentence different from any estimate in the plea agreement or provided by his
`attorney, and that the Court had the authority to impose a sentence that is more severe or less severe
`than the sentence called for by the Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant was advised, and informed
`to have understood, that the Sentencing Guidelines are thus considered advisory, and that during
`sentencing the District Court will consider the sentencing criteria found in Title 18, United States
`Code, Section 3553(a), which include the seriousness of the offense, the need for deterrence of
`criminal conduct, the need to protect the public from further crimes, the need to provide Defendant
`with educational or vocational training, or medical care, and the need to provide restitution to any
`victims.
`Defendant was advised that parole has been abolished and that, if he is sentenced to prison,
`he will not be released on parole. Further, Defendant was advised of his right to appeal and that,
`under some circumstances, he or the Government may have the right to appeal the sentence
`imposed by the Court. But that, pursuant to his plea agreement, he is waiving his right to appeal
`both the judgment and sentence imposed by the Court, if the Court accepts his plea agreement and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cr-00310-ADC Document 73 Filed 04/10/25 Page 6 of 7
`
`USA v. Miranda-Rodríguez
`Criminal No. 22-310 (ADC)
`Report and Recommendation on Guilty Plea
`
`
`sentences him to 114 months of imprisonment or less. Defendant informed that he understood his
`right to appeal and that he voluntarily agreed to this waiver.
`F. Waiver of Constitutional Rights
`Defendant was specifically advised that he has the right to persist in a plea of not guilty
`and that, if he does, he has the right to a speedy trial by jury, or trial before a judge sitting without
`a jury if the Court and the Government agree; that at trial he would be presumed innocent and the
`Government would have to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; that he would have the right
`to the assistance of counsel for his defense, and that, if he could not afford one, an attorney would
`be appointed to represent him through all stages of the proceedings; that at trial he would have the
`right to hear and cross examine all witnesses, the right to issue subpoenas or to compel the
`attendance of witnesses to testify at trial, and the right to testify or to remain silent. Defendant was
`further advised that if he decided not to testify or put on evidence at trial, the failure to do so could
`not be used against him, and that at trial the jury would have to return a unanimous verdict before
`he could be found guilty or not guilty.
`Defendant specifically acknowledged understanding these rights. He reaffirmed his
`understanding that by entering a plea of guilty there would be no trial and he would be waiving or
`giving up the rights that the Court explained.
`Offenses Charged and Factual Basis for the Guilty Plea
`G.
`Defendant was read in open court Counts Two and Three of the Indictment and was
`provided an explanation of technical terms used in the Indictment to describe the offenses as
`charged. Defendant was also provided an explanation of the elements of the offenses and expressed
`to have understood what the Government would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt if he
`were to go to trial.
`The Government explained the factual basis for the offenses and the evidence it would
`present if this case were to proceed to trial. Upon questioning, Defendant admitted to the facts.
`Defendant admitted that he was pleading guilty because he is in fact guilty. Defendant pled guilty
`as to Counts Two and Three of the Indictment.
`IV. Conclusion
`Defendant appeared before me, by consent, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of
`
`Criminal Procedures and entered a plea of guilty as to Counts Two and Three of the Indictment.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cr-00310-ADC Document 73 Filed 04/10/25 Page 7 of 7
`
`USA v. Miranda-Rodríguez
`Criminal No. 22-310 (ADC)
`Report and Recommendation on Guilty Plea
`
`
`After cautioning and examining Defendant under oath and in open court concerning each
`
`of the subject matters in Rule 11, the Court finds that the defendant, Alexander Miranda
`Rodríguez is fully competent and capable of entering a guilty plea, is aware of the nature of the
`charges and the maximum statutory penalties these carry, understands that the charges are
`supported by evidence and a basis in fact, has admitted to the facts, and has done so in an intelligent
`and voluntary manner with knowledge of the consequences of his guilty plea.
`I recommend that the Court accept the guilty plea and that Defendant be adjudged guilty
`as to Counts Two and Three of the Indictment.
`IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
`This Report and Recommendation is issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule
`
`72 (d) of the Local Rules of this Court. Any objections to the same must be specific and must be
`filed within fourteen (14) days of its receipt. Failure to file timely and specific objections to the
`Report and Recommendation is a waiver of the right to review by the District Judge. United States
`v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F. 2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986).
`A sentencing hearing will be set by the presiding judge, Hon. Aida M. Delgado Colón.
`In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 10th day of April 2025.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Giselle López-Soler
`GISELLE LÓPEZ-SOLER
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`7
`
`