1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BEAUMONT DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

KASIE LORRETTA WOOD (2)

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO. 1:23-CR-00014-MAC

FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON GUILTY PLEA

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

By order of the District Court, this matter is referred to the undersigned United States 

Magistrate Judge for administration of the guilty plea under Rule 11. Magistrate judges have the 

statutory authority to conduct a felony guilty plea proceeding as an “additional duty” pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). United States v. Bolivar-Munoz, 313 F.3d 253, 255 (5th Cir. 2002). 

On May 30, 2023, this case came before the undersigned magistrate judge for entry of a 

guilty plea by the Defendant, Kasie Lorretta Wood (2), to Count One of the Information. Count 

One alleges that on or about January 19, 2022, in the Eastern District of Texas and elsewhere,

Kasie Loretta Wood, a/k/a “Kasie Loretta Yates,” defendant, knowingly and intentionally 

conspired and agreed with persons known and unknown, to commit violations of 18 U.S.C. § 

2119(2), Carjacking Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury. All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371

(Conspiracy).

The Defendant entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the Information into the record at 

the hearing. After conducting the proceeding in the form and manner prescribed by Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 11, the undersigned finds:

Case 1:23-cr-00014-MAC-CLS Document 59 Filed 05/30/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:

120
2

a. That the Defendant, after consultation with her attorney, has knowingly, freely 

and voluntarily consented to the administration of the guilty plea in this case by a United States 

Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Texas, subject to a final approval and imposition of 

sentence by the District Court.

b. That the Defendant and the Government have entered into a plea agreement which 

was disclosed and addressed in open court, entered into the record, and placed under seal. The 

Defendant verified that she understood the terms of the plea agreement, and she acknowledged 

that it was her signature on the plea agreement. To the extent the plea agreement contains 

recommendations and requests pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 (c)(1)(B), the court advised the 

Defendant that she has no right to withdraw the plea if the court does not follow the particular 

recommendations or requests. To the extent that any or all of the terms of the plea agreement are 

pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the undersigned advised the Defendant that she will have the 

opportunity to withdraw her plea of guilty should the court not follow those particular terms of 

the plea agreement.1

c. That the Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, 

that the Defendant is aware of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea, and 

1. “(3) Judicial Consideration of a Plea Agreement.

(A) To the extent the plea agreement is of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the court may accept the 

agreement, reject it, or defer a decision until the court has reviewed the presentence report.

(B) To the extent the plea agreement is of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(B), the court must advise the defendant 

that the defendant has no right to withdraw the plea if the court does not follow the recommendation or request.

(4) Accepting a Plea Agreement. If the court accepts the plea agreement, it must inform the defendant that to the 

extent the plea agreement is of the type specified in Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the agreed disposition will be included 

in the judgment.

(5) Rejecting a Plea Agreement. If the court rejects a plea agreement containing provisions of the type specified in 

Rule 11(c)(1)(A) or (C), the court must do the following on the record and in open court (or, for good cause, in 

camera):

(A) inform the parties that the court rejects the plea agreement;

(B) advise the defendant personally that the court is not required to follow the plea agreement and give the defendant 

an opportunity to withdraw the plea; and

(C) advise the defendant personally that if the plea is not withdrawn, the court may dispose of the case less favorably 

toward the defendant than the plea agreement contemplated.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(3)-(5).

Case 1:23-cr-00014-MAC-CLS Document 59 Filed 05/30/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:

121
3

that the plea of guilty is made freely, knowingly, and voluntarily. Upon addressing the 

Defendant personally in open court, the undersigned determines that the Defendant’s plea is 

knowing and voluntary and did not result from force, threats or promises (other than the 

promises set forth in the plea agreement). See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(2).

d. That the Defendant’s knowing and voluntary plea is supported by an independent 

factual basis establishing each of the essential elements of the offense and the Defendant realizes 

that her conduct falls within the definition of the crime charged under 18 U.S.C. § 371 -

Conspiracy.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

As factual support for the Defendant’s guilty plea, the Government presented a factual 

basis. See Factual Basis and Stipulation. In support, the Government would prove that the 

Defendant is the same person charged in the Information, and that the events described in the 

Information occurred in the Eastern District of Texas. The Government would also have proven, 

beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every essential element of the offense as alleged in Count 

One of the Information through the testimony of witnesses, including expert witnesses, and 

admissible exhibits. In support of the Defendant’s plea, the undersigned incorporates the proffer 

of evidence described in detail in the factual basis and stipulation filed in support of the plea 

agreement, and the Defendant’s admissions made in open court in response to the undersigned’s 

further inquiry into the factual basis and stipulation.

The Defendant agreed with and stipulated to the evidence presented in the factual basis. 

Counsel for the Defendant and the Government attested to the Defendant’s competency and 

capability to enter an informed plea of guilty. The Defendant agreed with the evidence presented 

Case 1:23-cr-00014-MAC-CLS Document 59 Filed 05/30/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:

122
4

by the Government and personally testified that she was entering the guilty plea knowingly, 

freely and voluntarily. 

RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION

IT IS THEREFORE the recommendation of the undersigned United States Magistrate 

Judge that the District Court accept the Guilty Plea of the Defendant, which the undersigned 

determines to be supported by an independent factual basis establishing each of the essential 

elements of the offense charged in Count One of the Information. Accordingly, it is further 

recommended that the District Court finally adjudge the Defendant, Kasie Lorretta Wood (2), 

guilty of the charged offense under 18 U.S.C. § 371 - Conspiracy.

The District Court should defer its decision to accept or reject the plea agreement until 

there has been an opportunity to review the presentence report. If the plea agreement is rejected 

and the Defendant still persists in her guilty plea, the disposition of the case may be less 

favorable to the Defendant than that contemplated by the plea agreement. The Defendant is 

ordered to report to the United States Probation Department for the preparation of a presentence 

report. The Defendant has the right to allocute before the District Court before imposition of 

sentence. 

OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), each party to this action has the right to file 

objections to this Report and Recommendation. Objections to this Report must (1) be in writing, 

(2) specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the party objects, (3) be 

served and filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report, and (4) 

be no more than eight (8) pages in length. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CRIM. P.

Case 1:23-cr-00014-MAC-CLS Document 59 Filed 05/30/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:

123
5

59(b)(2); E.D. TEX. CRIM. R. CR-59(c). A party who objects to this Report is entitled to a de 

novo determination by the United States District Judge of those proposed findings and 

recommendations to which a specific objection is timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED.

R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(3).

A party’s failure to file specific, written objections to the proposed findings of fact and 

conclusions of law contained in this report, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy 

of this report, bars that party from: (1) entitlement to de novo review by the United States District 

Judge of the findings of fact and conclusions of law, see Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 

276–77 (5th Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of any such 

findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the United States District Judge, see 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

_________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 30th day of May, 2023.

Case 1:23-cr-00014-MAC-CLS Document 59 Filed 05/30/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:

124