United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
STEPHANIE K. BOWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Tujuana Akins entered a plea of guilty to a two-count
superseding indictment charging her with making a false claim
for a refund in violation of 18 U.S.C. §287 and
attempting to obstruct lawful function of the Internal
Revenue Service in violation of 26 U.S.C. §7212a. On
April 26, 2018, Defendant, accompanied by her counsel,
appeared for a change of plea hearing before the undersigned.
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 she entered her guilty plea, Defendant was in full
possession of her 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
her personally and in open court and determined her
competence to plead. Based on the observations of the
undersigned, Defendant understands the nature and meaning of
the charges returned in the superseding indictment and the
consequences of her plea. 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 no promises were made to her by anyone
regarding the charges in the superseding indictment or
regarding her entry of a guilty plea. There is no plea
agreement in this matter and Defendant is aware of all plea
negotiations that took place. Defendant was advised of the
advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines and that the
District Judge has the authority to impose a sentence that is
more severe or less severe than the sentence suggested by the
confirmed the accuracy of the material aspects of the
investigating officer's statement of facts supporting the
charge. She confirmed that she is pleading guilty to count
one and to count two of the superseding indictment because
she is in fact guilty of the offense charged in the
superseding indictment. The Court concludes that there is a
factual basis for the plea.
Court concludes that Defendant's plea of guilty to count
one and to count two of the superseding indictment is
knowingly and voluntarily made with the understanding of the
nature and meaning of the charge and of the consequences of
therefore RECOMMENDED that Defendant Tujuana
Akins' guilty plea to Count One and to Count Two of the
Superseding Indictment be accepted.
accordance with S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 32.1, a written
presentence investigation report will be prepared by the
United States Probation Office. Defendant will be asked to
provide information and her attorney may be present if
Defendant so wishes. Objections to the presentence report
must be made in accordance with the rules of this Court.
further RECOMMENDED that the District Judge
require the presentence investigation report be prepared on
an expedited basis.
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);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
parties are specifically advised that the 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 waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the
District Court. See, e.g., Pfahlerv. Nat'l Latex
Prod. Co.,517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding
that "failure to object to the magistrate judge's
recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant's]
ability to appeal the district court's ruling");
United States v. Sullivan,431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th
Cir. 2005) (holding that defendant waived appeal of district
court's denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely
object to magistrate judge's report and recommendation).
Even when timely objections are filed, appellate review of
issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert
v. Tesson,507 F.3d 981, ...