Case 3:24-cr-00463-ADC Document 25 Filed 04/10/25 Page 1 of 6
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`RICHARD LORENZO CABA BATISTA,
`Defendant.
`
`Criminal No. 24-463 (ADC)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`ON RULE 11(b) CHANGE OF PLEA HEARING
`
`
`
`Procedural Background
`I.
`On December 19, 2024, Defendant Richard Lorenzo Caba Batista was charged by a Grand
`Jury in a one-count indictment. Defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count One of the Indictment.
`Count One of the Indictment charges that, on or about December 7, 2024, in the District of
`Puerto Rico, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the defendant, Richard Lorenzo Caba Batista,
`who is an alien, as the term is defined in Title 8, United States code, Section 1101(a)(3), and who
`has been previously removed from the United States after an aggravated felony conviction,
`attempted to enter and entered the United States, without obtaining, prior to his re-embarkation at
`a place outside the United States, the express consent of the Secretary of Homeland Security to
`reapply for admission into the United States. All in violation of Title 8, United States Code, Section
`1326 (a) and (b)(2).
`On February 25, 2025, Defendant moved for a change of plea. Docket No. 18. On April 1,
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cr-00463-ADC Document 25 Filed 04/10/25 Page 2 of 6
`
`USA v. Caba-Batista
`Crim. No. 24-463 (ADC)
`Report and Recommendation on Guilty Plea
`
`
`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
`informed that, if he elects to proceed before a magistrate judge, the magistrate judge would conduct
`the hearing and prepare a report and recommendation, subject to the review and approval of the
`district judge.
`Defendant was provided with a Waiver of Right to Trial by Jury, which he signed prior to
`the hearing. Docket No. 23. Defendant validated his signature and informed that his attorney had
`translated the document to Spanish and 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.
`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 charge with his attorney, and that he was satisfied with the advice and representation he
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cr-00463-ADC Document 25 Filed 04/10/25 Page 3 of 6
`
`USA v. Caba-Batista
`Crim. No. 24-463 (ADC)
`Report and Recommendation on Guilty Plea
`
`
`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.
`Voluntariness
`B.
`Defendant expressed that he had discussed with counsel his decision to enter a straight plea
`in this case and that he understood the consequences of such a decision. Upon questioning,
`Defendant confirmed that no one made promises or assurances of any kind in exchange for him
`guilty plea. Defendant indicated that he was not being induced to plead guilty, that he was entering
`such 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. Defendant understood that the offense to which
`he is pleading guilty is a felony and that, if the plea is accepted, he will be adjudged guilty of that
`offense, and that such adjudication may deprive him of valuable civil rights, such as the right to
`vote, the right to hold public office, the right to serve on a jury, and the right to possess a firearm.
`Importantly, Defendant was advised, and expressed to have understood that, because he is not a
`United States citizen, if accepted, his plea of guilty could result in negative immigration
`consequences, such as the removal or deportation from the United States, the denial of citizenship,
`and being barred from re-entry to the United States.
`Throughout the hearing, Defendant was free to consult with his attorney or to seek
`clarification from the Court. He confirmed that his decision to plead guilty was made knowingly
`and voluntarily.
`C. Maximum Penalties
`Defendant expressed his understanding of the statutory maximum penalties for the offense
`to which he was pleading guilty. Count One of the Indictment carries a term of imprisonment of
`not more than twenty (20) years, a fine not to exceed two hundred and fifty thousand dollars
`($250,000.00), and a term of supervised release of not more 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 applicable to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cr-00463-ADC Document 25 Filed 04/10/25 Page 4 of 6
`
`USA v. Caba-Batista
`Crim. No. 24-463 (ADC)
`Report and Recommendation on Guilty Plea
`
`
`Count One of the Indictment, that the offense charged is a felony, and the potential consequences
`of the guilty plea, such as the deprivation of certain valuable rights.
`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 than the one object of the Indictment, 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 Defendant pay restitution to any victim of the offense, and the
`Court may also require him to forfeit certain property to the Government. Defendant was also
`informed that any sentence imposed in this case could be imposed to run concurrently or
`consecutively to any sentences he may be currently serving in another case.
`Sentencing Procedure
`D.
`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 the Court, after considering the applicable Sentencing Guidelines,
`could impose a sentence different from any estimate expected by him 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 at 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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cr-00463-ADC Document 25 Filed 04/10/25 Page 5 of 6
`
`USA v. Caba-Batista
`Crim. No. 24-463 (ADC)
`Report and Recommendation on Guilty Plea
`
`
`imposed by the Court. But that, by pleading guilty, he is limiting his right to appeal to situations
`in which his guilty plea is unlawful or involuntary, or if there is a fundamental defect in the
`proceedings that was not waived by his plea of guilt, and to a statutory right to appeal a sentence
`if it is contrary to law. Defendant informed that he understood his right to appeal.
`E. 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 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 that, if he could not afford one, an attorney
`would be appointed to represent him throughout 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.
`Offense Charged and Factual Basis for the Guilty Plea
`F.
`Defendant was read in open court Count One of the Indictment. The Court explained
`technical terms used in the Indictment to describe the charge. The Court also explained the
`elements of the offense. Defendant expressed to have understood. The Government explained the
`factual basis for the offense and the evidence it would present if this case were to proceed to trial.
`Upon questioning, Defendant admitted to all the elements of the offense charged. Defendant
`admitted that he was pleading guilty because he is in fact guilty. Defendant pled guilty as to Count
`One 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 Count One of the Indictment.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:24-cr-00463-ADC Document 25 Filed 04/10/25 Page 6 of 6
`
`USA v. Caba-Batista
`Crim. No. 24-463 (ADC)
`Report and Recommendation on Guilty Plea
`
`
`After cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath and in open court concerning
`
`each of the subject matters mentioned in Rule 11, the Court finds that the defendant, Richard
`Lorenzo Caba Batista, is fully competent and capable of entering this guilty plea, is aware of the
`nature of the charge and the maximum statutory penalty it carries, understands that the charge is
`supported by evidence and a basis in fact, has admitted to the elements of the offense, 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 Count One 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 scheduled 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
`
`
`
`6
`
`