Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Beach, 6:19-CR-26-REW. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Kentucky Number: infdco20191008p57 Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 01, 2019
Summary: ORDER ROBERT E. WIER , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition (DE 70) of United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins, addressing Defendant Robert Jerome Beach's guilty plea as to Count Two of the Superseding Indictment (DE 25). DE 69 (Minutes). Defendant appeared before Judge Atkins on September 25, 2019. Id. After consenting to plead before a United States Magistrate Judge (DE 67) and engaging in the full colloquy required by Rule 11, he proce
More

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition (DE 70) of United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins, addressing Defendant Robert Jerome Beach's guilty plea as to Count Two of the Superseding Indictment (DE 25). DE 69 (Minutes). Defendant appeared before Judge Atkins on September 25, 2019. Id. After consenting to plead before a United States Magistrate Judge (DE 67) and engaging in the full colloquy required by Rule 11, he proceeded to plead guilty. DE 70. Judge Atkins found Defendant competent to plead and that Defendant did so in a knowing and voluntary fashion; he further found that an adequate factual basis supported the plea as to each essential element of the charged offense. Id. Accordingly, Judge Atkins recommended that the Court accept Defendant's plea and adjudge him guilty of the offense charged in Count Two of the Superseding Indictment. Id.

Defendant had three days within which to object to Judge Atkins's recommendation, and he has not done so. Nor has the United States objected. While this Court reviews de novo those portions of a Recommended Disposition to which a party objects, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), it is not required to "review . . . a magistrate[] [judge's] factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings." Thomas v. Arn, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472 (1985). When the parties do not object to the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition, they waive any right to review. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b); United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017) ("When a party . . . fails to lodge a specific objection to a particular aspect of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, we consider that issue forfeited on appeal."); see also United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 582, 587 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting that "[t]he law in this Circuit is clear" that a party who fails to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation forfeits his right to appeal its adoption).

The Court thus ADOPTS the Recommended Disposition (DE 70), accepts the plea, and ADJUDGES Robert Jerome Beach guilty of the offense charged in Count Two of the Superseding Indictment. An Order scheduling sentencing follows.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer