United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
L. GRAHAM, JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MCCANN KING, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Tommy D. Cox, Jr., is charged in an Indictment with
being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Defendant and the United States
entered into a plea agreement, executed pursuant to the
provisions of Rule 11(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, whereby defendant agreed to enter a plea
of guilty to that charge. Plea Agreement, ECF No.
On March 28, 2018, defendant, accompanied by his counsel,
appeared for a change of 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).
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.
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
the 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
engaged in the colloquy required by Rule 11, the Court
concludes that defendant's plea is voluntary. Defendant
acknowledged that the plea agreement signed by him, his
attorney and the attorney for the United States and filed on
March 13, 2018, represents the only promises made by anyone
regarding the charge in the Indictment. Defendant
was advised that the District Judge may accept or reject the
plea agreement and that, even if the Court refuses to accept
any provision of the plea agreement not binding on the Court,
defendant may nevertheless not withdraw his guilty plea.
confirmed the accuracy of the material aspects of the
statement of facts supporting the charge, which is attached
to the Plea Agreement. He 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.
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.
therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant's
guilty plea to Count 1 of the Indictment 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
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.
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 231 etc., 829 F.2d
1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).