MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES ORENSTEIN, Magistrate Judge.

On July 16, 2015, defendant Victor Otubu ("Otubu"), having consented to proceed before me for purposes of a plea allocution, offered a plea of guilty to Count One of the pending indictment. As set forth on the record, I made findings that Otubu was competent to proceed; that he fully understood his rights and the potential consequences of his plea; that the plea was not the result of any force, threat, or undisclosed promise; and that Otubu's admissions provided a factual basis for his plea. I therefore respectfully recommended that the court accept Otubu's guilty plea. The court has not yet acted on that recommendation or scheduled a sentencing date.

As soon as Otubu had offered his plea and I had made my recommendation, the government moved to detain Otubu pending sentence. See Docket Entry ("DE") 17 (letter dated July 15, 2015, providing notice of the anticipated motion, citing 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)).1 In seeking such relief, the government relies on a provision of the Bail Reform Act that generally requires the pertinent judicial officer to order the detention of "a person who has been found guilty of an offense and who is awaiting imposition . . . of sentence[.]" 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) (emphasis added).

I orally denied the government's motion and write briefly here to explain my reasoning. Simply stated, the statutory provision on which the government purports to rely does not apply to this case, at least not yet. Otubu has not been "found guilty" of an offense, and he is not "awaiting imposition . . . of sentence." He has offered a plea of guilty to Count One of the pending indictment, and I have reported to the court that in my view — based on specific findings about his competence, understanding of his rights, and the factual and legal content of his admissions in open court — he has done so effectively. Based on that report, I have recommended that the court accept the proffered plea. By doing so, I have done no more than applicable law allows: I have made "proposed findings and recommendations[.]" 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). The court will later review those proposed findings and recommendations, and I assume that, as virtually always happens in comparable circumstances, it will accept them and find Otubu guilty. Once it has done so, Otubu will have been found guilty and will be awaiting the imposition of sentence, and will be subject to presumptively mandatory detention. But until that happens, Otubu has not yet been "found guilty" and he remains eligible for release on conditions under the provisions of the Bail Reform Act relating to the pretrial phase of a criminal case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142. See United States v. Norfleet, 185 F.Supp.2d 315, 319-20 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ("a felony plea allocution taken before a United States Magistrate Judge. . . . is not a finding of guilt as required in order for the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3143 to apply").2

For the reasons set forth above, I deny the government's motion for detention pending the imposition of sentence.3

SO ORDERED.