In re Vasquez-Ramirez

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a district court is required to accept a guilty plea that satisfies the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)
• holding that a district judge has no discretion to reject a guilty plea when all the requirements of Rule 11(b) are met, but does have discretion to reject a guilty plea \when he feels the plea has failed to meet the Rule 11(b) requirements\
• holding that “going to trial” or “pleading guilty to . . . and then appealing [a] conviction” are “inadequate” remedies for purposes of mandamus, as they would result in “substantial prejudice” to the defendant, the government, and the judicial system (quotations omitted)
• holding that a district judge has no discretion to reject a guilty plea when all the requirements of Rule 11(b) are met, but does have discretion to reject a guilty plea “when he feels the plea has failed to meet the Rule 11(b) require- ments”
• holding that a district judge has no discretion to reject a guilty plea when all the requirements of Rule 11(b) are met, but does have discretion to reject a guilty plea “when he feels the plea has failed to meet the Rule 11(b) require- ments”
• “[V]iewing Rules 11(a) and (b) together, it is clear that a court must accept an unconditional guilty plea, so long as the Rule 11(b) requirements are met. The existence or non-existence of a Rule 11(c

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).