Case 3:25-cr-00182-CVR Document 22 Filed 04/10/25 Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
`
`
`
`CRIMINAL NO. 25-182(CVR)
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SANTIAGO VIDALES-BOHORQUEZ,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`RE: RULE 11(c)(1)(B) GUILTY PLEA HEARING
`
`
`I.
`
`Procedural Background
`On April 9, 2025, defendant Santiago Vidales-Bohorquez was charged in an Information.
`He agrees to plead guilty to Count One.
`Count One charges that on or about March 27, 2025, in the District of Puerto Rico and
`within the jurisdiction of this Court, Santiago Vidales-Bohorquez did knowingly use, accept,
`receive, or possess, a counterfeit document prescribed by statute and regulation for entry into the
`United States or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, that is a
`counterfeit Permanent Resident Card bearing alien number XXX-XXX-208, and a counterfeit
`Social Security card bearing social security number XXX-XXX-6021, all issued under the name
`of “Thiago Vidal-Vasquez”, which the defendant knew to be forged counterfeited, altered, or
`falsely made. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1546(a).
`Defendant appeared before me, assisted by the court interpreter, on April 9, 2025, because
`the Rule 11 hearing was referred by the court. See United States v. Woodard, 387 F.3d 1329 (11th
`Cir. 2004) (magistrate judge had 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:25-cr-00182-CVR Document 22 Filed 04/10/25 Page 2 of 5
`
`Page 2
`
`USA v. Santiago Vidales-Bohorquez,
`Cr. 25-182(CVR)
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA
`
`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 elects to
`proceed before a magistrate judge, then the magistrate judge will 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 a magistrate judge.
`Proceedings Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
`III.
`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 ‘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)).
`Competence to Enter a Guilty Plea
`A.
`This magistrate judge 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. The court confirmed that the
`defendant received the Information and fully discussed the charge with his attorney and was
`
`1 The form entitled Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge in a Felony Case
`for Pleading Guilty (Rule 11, Fed.R.Crim.P.) and Waiver of Jury Trial, signed and consented by both
`parties is made part of the record.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:25-cr-00182-CVR Document 22 Filed 04/10/25 Page 3 of 5
`
`Page 3
`
`USA v. Santiago Vidales-Bohorquez,
`Cr. 25-182(CVR)
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA
`
`satisfied with the advice and representation he received. The court 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. Vidales-
`Bohorquez 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 penalties
`prescribed by statute for the offense to which he was pleading guilty, namely: a term of
`imprisonment of not more than 10 years, a fine of not more than $250,000, and a supervised release
`term of not more than 3 years in addition to any term of incarceration. 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 penalties for Count One and the potential consequences
`of the guilty plea.
`C. 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 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 his 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
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:25-cr-00182-CVR Document 22 Filed 04/10/25 Page 4 of 5
`
`Page 4
`
`USA v. Santiago Vidales-Bohorquez,
`Cr. 25-182(CVR)
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA
`
`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 that the court 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 he understood these consequences of the guilty plea.
`Factual Basis for the Guilty Plea
`D.
`Defendant was read in open court Count One of the Information and provided an
`explanation of the elements of the offense. The meaning of terms used in the Information was
`explained.
`Upon questioning, the defendant admitted to facts constituting all of the elements of the
`offense charged in Count One 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.
`Voluntariness
`E.
`The defendant indicated that he was not being induced 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 Count One of the Information.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:25-cr-00182-CVR Document 22 Filed 04/10/25 Page 5 of 5
`
`USA v. Santiago Vidales-Bohorquez,
`Cr. 25-182(CVR)
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA
`
`
`Page 5
`
`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, Santiago Vidales-
`Bohorquez is competent to enter this guilty plea, is aware of the nature of the offense 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 offense, 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 Count One of the Information.
`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 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 court. United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986).
`A sentencing hearing will be set by the Presiding Judge Camille L. Velez-Rive.
`IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
`In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 9th day of April 2025.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Marshal D. Morgan
`MARSHAL D. MORGAN
`United States Magistrate Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`