Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Nixon, 2:17-cr-232. (2018)

Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio Number: infdco20180531d80 Visitors: 6
Filed: May 30, 2018
Latest Update: May 30, 2018
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION NORAH McCANN KING , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Jeremy D. Nixon is charged in an Indictment with being a felon in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). The Indictment also contains a forfeiture count by which the United States seeks to forfeit defendant's interest in three (3) firearms and associated ammunition. Indictment, ECF No. 10. Defendant originally entered a not guilty plea to the charge. On May 30, 2018, defendant, accompanied
More

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant Jeremy D. Nixon is charged in an Indictment with being a felon in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The Indictment also contains a forfeiture count by which the United States seeks to forfeit defendant's interest in three (3) firearms and associated ammunition. Indictment, ECF No. 10. Defendant originally entered a not guilty plea to the charge. On May 30, 2018, defendant, accompanied by his counsel, appeared for a change of plea proceeding.1 Defendant consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(3), to enter a guilty plea before a Magistrate Judge. See United States v. Cukaj, 2001 WL 1587410 at *1 (6th Cir. 2001)(Magistrate Judge may accept a guilty plea with the express consent of the defendant and where no objection to the report and recommendation is filed).

During the plea proceeding, the undersigned observed the appearance and responsiveness of defendant in answering questions. Based on that observation, the undersigned is satisfied that, at the time he entered his guilty plea, defendant was in full possession of his faculties, was not suffering from any apparent physical or mental illness, and was not under the influence of narcotics or alcohol.

Prior to accepting defendant's plea, the undersigned addressed defendant personally and in open court and determined his competence to plead. Based on the observations of the undersigned, defendant understands the nature and meaning of the charge in the Indictment and the consequences of his plea of guilty to that charge. Defendant was also addressed personally and in open court and advised of each of the rights referred to in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Having engaged in the colloquy required by Rule 11, the Court concludes that defendant's plea is voluntary.

Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts supporting the charge, which was presented orally by the attorney for the United States at the change of plea proceeding. Defendant confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment because he is in fact guilty of that offense. The Court concludes that there is a factual basis for the plea.

The Court concludes that defendant's plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment is knowingly and voluntarily made with understanding of the nature and meaning of the charge and of the consequences of the plea.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant's guilty plea to Count 1 of the Indictment be accepted.

In accordance with S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 32.1, and as expressly agreed to by defendant through counsel, a written presentence investigation report will be prepared by the United States Probation Office. Defendant will be asked to provide information; defendant's attorney may be present if defendant so wishes. Objections to the presentence report must be made in accordance with the rules of this Court.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. F.R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

FootNotes


1. The file does not contain a plea agreement. At the change of plea proceeding, defendant expressly agreed to the forfeiture count in the Indictment.
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