USA v. Phillips

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs.
SIR DALE MARCUS MCNELTON
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 6:25-CR-00197-6-ADA
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLEA
Pursuant to the referral by the District Judge, the defendant, the defendant’s attorney and
the attorney for the government appeared before the undersigned Magistrate Judge on March 24,
2026, for the purpose of the defendant’s entry of a plea of guilty. At that time the defendant entered
a guilty plea as stated on the record. The Magistrate Judge addressed the defendant personally in
open court and, after assuring that the defendant was competent to proceed and had consented to
pleading guilty before a Magistrate Judge, admonished the defendant in accordance with Rule 11,
Fed. R. Crim. P., of the nature of the charge, the possible penalties, the defendant’s constitutional
and statutory rights, and the consequences of pleading guilty. The defendant acknowledged
understanding these admonishments. The undersigned also addressed the defendant concerning
the voluntariness of the guilty plea. Finally, the undersigned assured the existence of a factual basis
for the guilty plea. Based upon the answers to the court’s questions from the defendant and from
counsel, the Magistrate Judge makes the following findings:
1. the defendant is competent to stand trial;
2. the defendant has consented to plead guilty before a Magistrate Judge;
3. the defendant fully understands the nature of the charge and the penalties;
4. the defendant understands defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights and desires to
waive them;
Case 6:25-cr-00197-CRW Document 334 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
5. the defendant’s plea is freely, knowingly and voluntarily made;
6. the defendant is satisfied with their attorney’s representation and has no complaints
regarding the attorney’s representation of any type; and
7. there is a factual basis for the plea.
RECOMMENDATION
It is, therefore, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that the guilty plea be
ACCEPTED and that a Judgment of guilt be entered against the defendant.
Instructions for Service and
Notice of Right to Appeal/Object
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of this Memorandum and
Recommendation on all parties either (1) electronic transmittal to all parties represented by an
attorney registered as a Filing User with the Clerk of Court pursuant to the Court's Procedural
Rules for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal Cases; or (2) by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to any party not represented by an attorney registered as a Filing User. Pursuant to Title
28 U.S.C. Section 636 (b)(1) and Rule 59(b)(2), Fed. R. Crim. P., any party who desires to object
to this report must serve and file written objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation
within 14 days after being served with a copy unless this time period is modified by the district
court. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or
recommendations. to which objections are being made and the basis for such objections; the district
court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or general objections. Such party shall file the
objections with the clerk of court, and serve the objections on all other parties and the Magistrate
Judge. A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and
recommendations contained in this report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the
Case 6:25-cr-00197-CRW Document 334 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
district court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).
Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and
recommendation contained in this Memorandum and Recommendation within 14 days after being
served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking
on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the
district court. Douglass v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th
Cir. 1996).
Case 6:25-cr-00197-CRW Document 334 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 3