Reported / Citable
Background
Dejon Samuel Bryant appeared with defense counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Dan N. MacLemore to enter a guilty plea. The matter had been referred by the district judge, and counsel for the government also attended the September 15, 2026 hearing.
The magistrate judge personally addressed Bryant in open court. The judge assessed Bryant’s competency and consent to proceed before a magistrate judge, delivered the admonishments required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, examined whether the plea was voluntary, and confirmed that it had a factual basis.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Bryant was competent to stand trial, had consented to plead guilty before a magistrate judge, and fully understood the charge and possible penalties. The judge also found that Bryant understood and wished to waive the applicable constitutional and statutory rights.
The magistrate judge further found that Bryant entered the plea freely, knowingly, and voluntarily; was satisfied with counsel’s representation; and had no complaints about that representation. Based on those findings and the established factual basis, the judge recommended that the district court accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The memorandum was a recommendation, not a final order accepting the plea.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge concluded that Bryant’s plea satisfied Rule 11’s competency, knowledge, voluntariness, waiver, and factual-basis requirements.
- The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the plea and entry of a judgment of guilt; final action remained with the district court.
- The parties had 14 days after service to file specific written objections, with failures to object carrying stated consequences for district-court and appellate review.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents the procedural safeguards used before a federal guilty plea may be accepted, including direct questioning of the defendant about the charge, penalties, rights, voluntariness, and satisfaction with counsel.
It also preserves the distinction between a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition and the district judge’s ultimate decision. Timely, specific objections are important because unobjected-to findings and conclusions may receive limited further review.