Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Charles — Accepted Guilty Plea and Adjudged Defendant Guilty on Three Counts

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Bracelon Armon Charles
Court
U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
Judge
MARCIA A. CRONE
Date Decided
April 7, 2026
Docket No.
1:25-cr-00063
Topics
Guilty Plea; Firearm Offense; Carjacking; Hobbs Act Robbery

Background

The district court referred Bracelon Armon Charles’s guilty-plea proceeding to U.S. Magistrate Judge Zack Hawthorn for administration under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Judge Hawthorn conducted the required hearing and issued findings of fact and a recommendation concerning the plea.

The magistrate judge recommended that the district court accept Charles’s guilty plea and adjudge him guilty on Counts Two, Three, and Five of the indictment. Neither party objected to the findings or recommendation.

The Court’s Holding

The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s findings of fact and recommendation and accepted Charles’s guilty plea. The court deferred acceptance of the plea agreement until after reviewing the presentence report.

The court adjudged Charles guilty of discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), as charged in Count Two; carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119, as charged in Count Three; and Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951, as charged in Count Five.

Key Takeaways

  • The district court adopted the unopposed findings and recommendation from the Rule 11 proceeding.
  • Charles was adjudged guilty on three counts involving firearm discharge, carjacking, and Hobbs Act robbery.
  • The court accepted the guilty plea but postponed its decision on the plea agreement pending review of the presentence report.

Why It Matters

The order formally establishes Charles’s guilt on three federal charges following a magistrate judge’s Rule 11 proceeding. It also distinguishes acceptance of the guilty plea from acceptance of the plea agreement, which remained deferred until the district court could review the presentence report.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top