USA v. Gomez et al

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	) 	Case No. 4:24-cr-00198-BLW-1
)
v. 	) 	REPORT AND
) 	RECOMMENDATION
MARYJANE MARIA GOMEZ, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
_____________________________________)
On December 11, 2025, Defendant appeared before the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge to enter a change of plea pursuant to a written plea agreement.
Defendant executed a written waiver of the right to have the presiding United States
District Judge take her change of plea. 	Thereafter, the Court explained to Defendant the
nature of the charges, the maximum penalties applicable, her constitutional rights, the
effect of the Sentencing Guidelines, and that the District Judge would not be bound by
any agreement of the parties as to the penalty to be imposed.
Having conducted the change of plea hearing and having inquired of Defendant
and her counsel, and counsel for the United States, the Court concludes that there is a
factual basis for Defendant’s plea of guilty, and that it was entered voluntarily and with
full knowledge of the consequences, and that the plea should be accepted. 	The
undersigned also ordered a pre-sentence investigation to be conducted and a report
prepared by the United States Probation Office.
Case 4:24-cr-00198-BLW Document 53 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2
Further, having carefully considered the arguments of counsel and the evidence
presented on the record, the Court finds that:
܈ Defendant pled guilty to an offense described in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(A), (B), or
(C), which triggers the mandatory detention provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a).
However, under § 3142(a)(2), clear and convincing evidence exists that the
Defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or
the community if released; and under § 3145(c), it was clearly shown that
exceptional reasons exist why detention pending sentencing would not be
appropriate. 	Accordingly, the Defendant shall remain released pending
sentencing subject to previously imposed Conditions of Pretrial Supervision.
RECOMMENDATION
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED:
1. 	The District Court accept Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the
Indictment (Dkt. 2).
2. 	The District Court take under advisement the decision whether to accept the terms
of the plea agreement pending review of the pre-sentence investigation report.
3. 	The District Court order forfeiture consistent with Defendant’s admission to the
Criminal Forfeiture allegation in the Indictment (Dkt. 2) and detailed in the Plea
Agreement (Dkt. 40).
4. 	The District Court continue Defendant’s release pending sentencing subject to the
previously imposed Conditions of Pretrial Supervision.
Written objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within
Case 4:24-cr-00198-BLW Document 53 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3
fourteen (14) days pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.1(b), or as a
result of failing to do so, that party may waive the right to raise factual and/or legal
objections to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
DATED: December 11, 2025
Honorable Raymond E. Patricco
Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge
DATED: December 11, 2025
Honorable Raymond E. Patricco
Chief U S Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cr-00198-BLW Document 53 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 3