United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
D. EVANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
criminal case is before the Court on Defendant Hector Hernan
Ramirez-Bravo's First Motion in Limine filed January 9,
2019 [Doc. 53] and the Non-Final Report and. Recommendation
("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge John
K. Larkins III filed August 2, 2019 [Doc. 64]. No. objections
have been filed to the R&R. For the reasons provided below,
the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant's First
Motion in Limine and ADOPTS the R&R as the opinion and
order of the Court.
MOTION IN LIMINE
September 21, 2016, a grand jury indicted Defendant, charging
him with conspiracy to distribute at least five kilograms of
cocaine while knowing, intending, and having reasonable cause
to believe that it would be unlawfully imported into the
United States [Doc. 1]. Defendant alleges that after his
indictment, he participated in plea discussions on three
occasions [Doc. 53 at 1] . Each time, DEA Agents allegedly
questioned Defendant and took notes during the questioning
[Doc. 53 at 1]. On January 9, 2019, Defendant filed his First
Motion in Limine [Doc. 53] to limit the introduction or use
of statements Defendant made during interviews in connection
with plea negotiations under Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11 and Federal Rule of Evidence 410.
exists "a strong presumption that the statements made
during a plea colloquy are true." United States v.
Chandler, 701 Fed.Appx. 776, 778 (11th Cir. 2017);
see also United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187
(11th Cir. 1994) ("There is a strong presumption that
the statements made during the colloquy are true.").
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f) provides that
"[t]he admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a
plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by
Federal Rule of Evidence 410." Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f).
Rule 410 states, in relevant part, that "any statement
made in the course of any Rule 11 proceeding is not
admissible against a defendant in a civil or criminal
case." Chandler, 701 Fed.Appx. at 778 (citing
Fed.R.Evid. 410(a) (3)). Nor can a court admit statements
made during plea negotiations "if the discussions did
not result in a guilty plea or resulted in a later-withdrawn
guilty plea." Id. (citing Fed.R.Evid.
motion is unopposed. However, Defendant has provided no
information as to what statements he seeks to protect and the
context in which they were given. Without this information,
the Court is unable to discern whether the statements are
protected by Rule 410. The Court therefore DENIES
Defendant's First Motion in Limine [Doc. 53] without
prejudice. The Court DIRECTS Defendant, should he desire to
refile the same motion, to include a statement precisely
explaining the statements he seeks to protect and the context
in which the statements were made.
filed a Motion to Dismiss From Lack of Jurisdiction [Doc. 52]
on January 9, 2019. Defendant argues that no court in this
district has jurisdiction over his case because there is no
connection between the charged conduct and this district
[Doc. 52 at 1-2] . Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss
Indictment Based Upon Ex Post Facto Violation [Doc. 59] on
March 5, 2019. Defendant argues that his indictment should be
dismissed because he was charged with conduct that was not
prohibited at the time of the alleged offense in violation of
the ex post facto clause of the United States
Constitution [Doc. 59 at 1]. After a thorough analysis, Judge
Larkins recommends that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
From Lack of Jurisdiction and Motion to Dismiss Indictment
Based Upon Ex Post Facto Violation be DENIED. The Court,
having read and considered the R&R and noting the absence
of any objections, ADOPTS the R&R as the opinion and
order of the Court. For the reasons set forth in the R&R,
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss From Lack of Jurisdiction
[Doc. 52] and Motion to Dismiss Indictment Based Upon Ex Post
Facto Violation [Doc. 59] are DENIED.
reasons provided above, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Defendant's First Motion in Limine [Doc. 53] and ADOPTS
the R&R [Doc. 64] as the opinion and order of the Court.
 Defendant filed a Notice of No.
Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Non-Final Report and
Recommendation on ...