Filed: Feb. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2019
Summary: REPORT & RECOMMENDATION DAVID A. RUIZ , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to General Order 99-49, this matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties, the defendant's offer of a plea of guilty, conducting the colloquy prescribed by Fed. R. Crim. 11, causing a verbatim record of the proceedings to be prepared, referring the matter, if appropriate, for presentence investigation, and submitting a Magistrate Judge's Report
Summary: REPORT & RECOMMENDATION DAVID A. RUIZ , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to General Order 99-49, this matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties, the defendant's offer of a plea of guilty, conducting the colloquy prescribed by Fed. R. Crim. 11, causing a verbatim record of the proceedings to be prepared, referring the matter, if appropriate, for presentence investigation, and submitting a Magistrate Judge's Report ..
More
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
DAVID A. RUIZ, Magistrate Judge.
Pursuant to General Order 99-49, this matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties, the defendant's offer of a plea of guilty, conducting the colloquy prescribed by Fed. R. Crim. 11, causing a verbatim record of the proceedings to be prepared, referring the matter, if appropriate, for presentence investigation, and submitting a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation stating whether the plea should be accepted and a finding of guilty entered. The following, along with the transcript or other record of the proceedings submitted herewith, constitutes the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation concerning the plea of guilty proffered by the defendant.
1. On February 12, 2019, the defendant, accompanied by counsel, proffered a plea of guilty to Count One of the indictment.
2. Prior to such proffer, the defendant was examined as to competency, advised of the charges and consequences of conviction, informed that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are advisory and the Court must consider them but the Court may impose any reasonable sentence authorized by law, notified of his rights, advised that he was waiving all rights except the right to counsel, and, if such were the case, his right to appeal, and otherwise was provided with the information prescribed in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
3. The parties and counsel informed the court about the plea agreement between the parties; the undersigned was advised that, aside from such agreement as described or submitted to the court, no other commitments or promises have been made by any party, and no other agreements, written or unwritten, have been made between the parties.
4. The undersigned questioned the defendant under oath about the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature of the plea of guilty, and finds that the defendant was competent to enter a plea and the plea was offered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
5. The parties provided the undersigned with sufficient information about the charged offense(s) and the defendant's conduct to establish a factual basis for the plea, and the defendant acknowledged that he committed the acts alleged in the indictment.
In light of the foregoing and the record submitted herewith, the undersigned finds that the defendant's plea of guilty was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and all requirements imposed by the United States Constitution and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 have been satisfied. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that the defendant's plea of guilty be accepted and a finding of guilty be entered by the Court.
OBJECTIONS
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Courts within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).
