Reported / Citable
Background
Zateria Mack was charged in Count One of the indictment with violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). The district judge referred the administration of Mack’s guilty plea and allocution to a U.S. magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
At a July 16, 2026 hearing, Mack signed a written consent to plead before the magistrate judge and entered a guilty plea under a written plea agreement. Mack was advised that Count One carried a mandatory minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment and a maximum of life, at least five years of supervised release, a fine of up to $10 million, and a $100 mandatory special assessment.
The Court’s Holding
After conducting the plea proceeding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, Magistrate Judge Ronald C. Griffin found that Mack knowingly and voluntarily consented to the magistrate judge’s administration of the plea, subject to the district judge’s final approval and imposition of sentence.
The magistrate judge also found that Mack was competent, understood the charge and the consequences of pleading guilty, and entered a knowing and voluntary plea supported by an independent factual basis establishing every essential element of the offense. He therefore recommended that the district judge accept the plea and adjudge Mack guilty of Count One.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling is a report and recommendation, not a final adjudication of guilt or sentence.
- The magistrate judge found that the Rule 11 requirements for a knowing, voluntary, and factually supported guilty plea were satisfied.
- Any objections must be filed within 14 days after service, absent a deadline modification by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents the procedural safeguards required before a federal felony guilty plea may be accepted, including the defendant’s competence, understanding of the charge and penalties, voluntariness, and an adequate factual basis.
Final acceptance of Mack’s plea and adjudication of guilt remain with the district judge. Failure to make timely, specific objections may limit district-court review and later appellate challenges to adopted factual findings.