United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
L. GRAHAM JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
McCann King United States Magistrate Judge.
United States of America and Defendant Gregory Schnabel
entered into a plea agreement, executed pursuant to Rule
11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
whereby Defendant agreed to plead guilty to three (3) counts
of an Information charging conspiracy to violate the
laws of the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371.
Specifically, it is charged that Defendant conspired to
commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and
to make false claims for tax credits in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 287.
October 23, 2017, Defendant, accompanied by his counsel,
appeared for an arraignment and guilty plea proceeding.
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]; United States v. Torres, 258 F.3d 791, 796
(8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Dees,
125 F.3d 261, 263-69 (5th Cir. 1997); United
States v. Ciapponi, 77 F.3d 1247, 1251 (10th
Cir. 1996). Defendant also waived his right to an indictment
in open court and after being advised of the nature of the
charge and of his rights. See Fed. R. Crim P. 7(b).
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 pleas, 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.
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 charges in the Information and the consequences
of the pleas to those charges. 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
engaged in the colloquy required by Rule 11, the Court
concludes that Defendant's pleas are voluntary. Defendant
acknowledged that the Plea Agreement signed by him,
his attorney and the attorney for the United States and filed
on August 2, 2017, represents the only promises made by
anyone regarding the charges in the Information.
Defendant was advised that the District Judge may accept or
reject the Plea Agreement. Defendant was further
advised that, if the Court refuses to accept the Plea
Agreement, Defendant will have the opportunity to
withdraw his guilty pleas but that, if he does not withdraw
his guilty pleas, the District Judge may impose a sentence
that is more severe than the sentence contemplated in the
confirmed the accuracy of the material aspects of the
statement of facts supporting the charges, which is attached
to the Plea Agreement. He confirmed that he is
pleading guilty to Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the
Information because he is in fact guilty of those
offenses. The Court concludes that there is a
factual basis for the pleas.
Court concludes that Defendant's pleas of guilty to Count
1, 2, and 3 of the Information are knowingly and
voluntarily made with understanding of the nature and meaning
of the charges and of the consequences of the pleas.
therefore RECOMMENDED that Defendant's
guilty pleas to Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the
Information be accepted. Decision on acceptance or
rejection of the Plea Agreement was deferred for
consideration by the District Judge after the preparation of
a presentence investigation report.
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 he
wishes. Objections to the presentence report must be made in
accordance with the rules of this Court.
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).
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 ...