Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Washington, 1:18CR331-6. (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio Number: infdco20190124d99 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 03, 2019
Summary: SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN B. BURKE , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to General Order 99-49, this matter having been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke 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. P. 11, causing a verbatim record of the proceedings to be prepared, referring the matter, if appropriate, for presentence investig
More

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to General Order 99-49, this matter having been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen B. Burke 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. P. 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 December 7, 2018, defendant, accompanied by counsel, proffered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment. The undersigned conducted a plea hearing and plea colloquy pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and submitted a Report & Recommendation on the same date recommending that defendant's plea of guilty to Count 1 of the indictment be accepted by the Court. Doc. 264. 2. Subsequently, it came to the attention of the undersigned that defendant is charged in two additional Counts of the indictment, Counts 29 and 59, and that his plea entered on December 7, 2018, did not address those Counts. Accordingly, the undersigned scheduled a hearing to receive defendant's plea to those Counts. 3. On January 3, 2019, the defendant, accompanied by counsel, proffered a plea of guilty to Counts 29 and 59 of the Indictment. Prior to such proffer, the defendant was examined as to his competency, advised of the charge and consequences of conviction, informed that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are advisory and the Court must consider them but the Court may impose any sentence authorized by law, notified of his rights, and otherwise provided with the information prescribed in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. 4. The parties and counsel informed the court that no plea agreement had been reached between the parties. The undersigned was advised that no 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's 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.

In light of the foregoing and the record submitted herewith, the undersigned finds that the defendant's plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and that all requirements imposed by the United States Constitution and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 have been satisfied. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that the plea of guilty to Counts 29 and 59 of the Indictment be accepted and a finding of guilty be entered by the Court.

ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to file objections within the specified time WAIVES the right to appeal the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See, United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).

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