Case 3:22-cr-00474-ADC Document 415 Filed 04/25/25 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
` CRIMINAL NO. 22-474 (ADC)
`v.
`
`[1] YARIEL PINEIRO-CASTRO,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`RE: RULE 11(c)(1)(B) GUILTY PLEA HEARING
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Procedural Background:
`
`On November 3, 2022, defendant Yariel Pineiro-Castro was charged in a multi-
`
`defendant, multi-count superseding indictment. (Docket No. 67). He agreed to plead
`
`guilty to Counts Three and Five of said superseding indictment.
`
`Count Three charges Mr. Pineiro-Castro, with conspiring to distribute over 500
`
`grams of cocaine from October of 2022 until on or about November 1, of 2022, in
`
`violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(l) and 846.
`
`Count Five charges defendant with knowingly and intentionally possessing a
`
`firearm on November 1, 2022, in furtherance of drug trafficking offenses as charged in
`
`Counts Three and Four of the indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
`
`Defendant appeared before me, assisted by the court interpreter, on April 25,
`
`2025, after the Rule 11 hearing was referred to me by the Presiding District Judge. See
`
`United States v. Woodard, 387 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2004) (magistrate judge had
`1
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cr-00474-ADC Document 415 Filed 04/25/25 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`authority to conduct Rule 11 guilty plea hearing with consent of defendant). He was
`
`advised of the purpose of the hearing and placed under oath with instructions that his
`
`answers must be truthful lest he subject himself to possible charges of perjury or making
`
`a false statement.
`
`II. Consent to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge:
`
`Defendant was provided with a Waiver of Right to Trial by Jury form, which he
`
`signed.1 He was advised of his right to hold all proceedings, including the change of plea
`
`hearing, before a district court judge. He received an explanation of the differences
`
`between the scope of jurisdiction and functions of a district judge and a magistrate judge.
`
`He was informed that if he elected to proceed before me, a magistrate judge, that I would
`
`conduct the hearing and prepare a report and recommendation, subject to review and
`
`approval of the district judge. The defendant then voluntarily consented to proceed
`
`before me.
`
`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, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`1 The form entitled Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge in a Felony Case for
`Pleading Guilty (Fed. R. Crim. P. 11) and Waiver of Jury Trial, signed and consented by both parties is
`made part of the record.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cr-00474-ADC Document 415 Filed 04/25/25 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`‘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 F2d 1237, 1244
`
`(1st Cir. 1991)).
`
`A.
`
`Competence to Enter a Guilty Plea
`
`I questioned the defendant about his age, education, employment, 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, all in order to ascertain his capacity to
`
`understand, answer and comprehend the change of plea colloquy. I confirmed that the
`
`defendant received the indictment and fully discussed the charges with his attorney and
`
`was satisfied with the advice and representation he received.
`
`In addition, I further inquired whether defendant’s counsel or counsel for the
`
`government had any doubt as to his capacity to plead, receiving answers from both that
`
`the defendant was competent to enter a plea. After considering the defendant’s
`
`responses, and observing his demeanor, a finding was made that Mr. Pineiro-Castro was
`
`competent to plead and fully aware of the purpose of the hearing.
`
`B. Maximum Penalties
`
`Upon questioning, the defendant expressed his understanding of the maximum
`
`and minimum penalties prescribed by statute as charged for the offense to which he was
`
`pleading guilty, namely for Count Three: a term of imprisonment which shall not be less
`
`
`
`3
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cr-00474-ADC Document 415 Filed 04/25/25 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`than five (5) years, a fine not to exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000.00), and a
`
`supervised release term of at least four (4) years in addition to any term of incarceration.
`
`However, based on the stipulated and agreed to amount of narcotics possessed by
`
`the defendant, that is, at least 400 grams but less than 500 grams of cocaine, the
`
`defendant was told and understood that he faces a term of imprisonment of no more than
`
`twenty (20) years, a fine not to exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000.00), and a
`
`supervised release term of at least three (3) years in addition to any term of incarceration.
`
`As to Count Five, defendant understood that the applicable penalties are a term
`
`of imprisonment of not less than five (5) years and up to life, to be served consecutive
`
`from any other count of conviction, a fine not to exceed $250,000.00, and a supervised
`
`release term up to five (5) years.
`
`The defendant also understood that a Special Monetary Assessment of $100.00
`
`would be imposed, to be deposited in the Crime Victim Fund, pursuant to Title 18, United
`
`States Code, Section 3013(a). The court explained the nature of supervised release and
`
`the consequences of revocation. The defendant indicated that he understood the
`
`maximum and minimum penalties for Counts Three and Five and the potential
`
`consequences of the guilty plea.
`
`C.
`
`Plea Agreement
`
`Mr. Pineiro-Castro was shown his plea agreement, and the plea agreement
`
`supplement, which are part of the record, and identified his initials and signatures. He
`
`confirmed that he had the opportunity to read and discuss the plea agreement with his
`
`attorney before he signed it, that it represented the entirety of his understanding with
`
`
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cr-00474-ADC Document 415 Filed 04/25/25 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`the government, that he understood its terms, and that no one had made any other or
`
`different promises or assurances to induce him to plead guilty.
`
`The defendant was then admonished, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B) and
`
`expressed his understanding that the terms of the plea agreement are merely
`
`recommendations to the court, and that the district judge who will preside over the
`
`sentencing hearing can reject the recommendation without permitting the defendant to
`
`withdraw his guilty plea, and impose a sentence that is more severe than the defendant
`
`might anticipate. The defendant was specifically informed that the court, after
`
`considering the applicable Sentencing Guidelines, 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. The defendant was advised, and
`
`understood, that the Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory and are thus
`
`considered advisory, and that during sentencing the court will consider the sentencing
`
`criteria found at Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a).
`
`The defendant was advised that under some circumstances he or the government
`
`may have the right to appeal the sentence the court imposes, but that pursuant to the
`
`plea agreement the defendant will waive his right to appeal both his sentence and his
`
`conviction if the court adopts the plea agreement and sentences, him according to its
`
`terms and conditions.
`
`D. Waiver of Constitutional Rights
`
`The defendant was specifically advised that he has the right to persist in a plea of
`
`not guilty, and if he does so persist that he has the right to a speedy and public trial by
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cr-00474-ADC Document 415 Filed 04/25/25 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`jury, or trial before a judge sitting without a jury if the court and the government so 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 if he could not afford an attorney the court would appoint one to
`
`represent him throughout all stages of the proceedings; that at trial he would have the
`
`right to hear and cross examine the government’s witnesses, the right to decline to testify
`
`unless he voluntarily elected to do so, and the right to the issuance of subpoenas or
`
`compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses to testify. He was further
`
`informed 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 must return a unanimous verdict
`
`before he could be found guilty or not guilty.
`
`The defendant specifically acknowledged understanding these rights and
`
`understanding that by entering a plea of guilty there would be no trial and he will be
`
`waiving or giving up the rights I explained.
`
`The defendant was informed that parole has been abolished and that any sentence
`
`of imprisonment must be served, and that his guilty plea may result in loss of important
`
`civil rights, such as the right to vote, to hold public office, to serve on a jury, and to
`
`possess a firearm. The defendant confirmed that she understood these consequences of
`
`the guilty plea.
`
`E.
`
`Factual Basis for the Guilty Plea
`
`Defendant was read in open court Counts Three and Five of the indictment and
`
`provided an explanation of the elements of the offense. The meaning of terms used in the
`
`superseding indictment was also explained.
`
`
`
`6
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cr-00474-ADC Document 415 Filed 04/25/25 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`Upon questioning, the defendant admitted to facts constituting all of the elements
`
`of the offense charged in Counts Three and Five and that the evidence the government
`
`had available to establish, in the event defendant elected to go to trial, the defendant’s
`
`guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
`
`F.
`
`Voluntariness
`
`The defendant indicated that he was not being forced to plead guilty but was
`
`entering such a plea freely and voluntarily because in fact he is guilty, and that no one
`
`had threatened him or offered a thing of value in exchange for his plea. He acknowledged
`
`that no one had made any different or other promises in exchange for his guilty plea,
`
`other than the recommendations set forth in the plea agreement. Throughout the hearing
`
`the defendant was able to consult with his attorney.
`
`IV. Conclusion:
`
`The defendant, by consent, appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Criminal Procedure, and entered a plea of guilty as to Counts Three and Five of
`
`the superseding indictment. After cautioning and examining the defendant under oath
`
`and in open court concerning each of the subject matters mentioned in Rule 11, I find
`
`that the defendant, Yariel Pineiro-Castro is competent to enter this guilty plea, is aware
`
`of the nature of the offenses charged and the maximum statutory penalties that it carries,
`
`understands that the charge is supported by evidence and a basis in fact, has admitted to
`
`the elements of the offenses, and has done so in an intelligent and voluntary manner with
`
`full knowledge of the consequences of his guilty plea. Therefore, I recommend that the
`
`court accept the guilty plea and that the defendant be adjudged guilty as to Counts Three
`
`and Five of the superseding indictment.
`
`
`
`7
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cr-00474-ADC Document 415 Filed 04/25/25 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`This report and recommendation is filed 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 with the Clerk of Court within 14 days. Failure to file timely and
`
`specific objections to the report and recommendation is a waiver of the right to appellate
`
`review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Davet v. Maccorone, 973 F.2d 22,
`
`30–31 (1st Cir. 1992); Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Mass. Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 840 F.2d
`
`985 (1st Cir. 1988); Borden v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir.
`
`1987).
`
`IT IS SO RECOMMENDED
`
`
`
`In San Juan, Puerto Rico this 25th day of April, 2025.
`
`S/Héctor L. Ramos-Vega
` HÉCTOR L. RAMOS-VEGA
` UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`
`
`8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`