United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
ALGENON L. MARBLEY JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MCCANN KING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Raven Symone McDonald is charged by Indictment, ECF
No. 1, with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count 1), 32 counts of
wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 2
(Counts 2 - 33), and ten counts of making false statements in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001(a)(1), 2 (Counts 34
- 43). The Indictment also contains a forfeiture
count. Defendant and the United States and entered into a
plea agreement whereby defendant agreed to enter a plea
of guilty to Counts 1, 34, and 38. On May 11, 2018,
defendant, accompanied by her counsel, appeared for an
initial appearance, arraignment, and entry of guilty
pleas. 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
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 pleas, 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
defendant 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 in the Indictment and the consequences
of her pleas of guilty to Counts 1, 34, and 38. 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.
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 her, her
attorney and the attorney for the United States and filed on
May 9, 2018, represents the only promises made by anyone
regarding the charges in the Indictment. 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 her guilty pleas but that,
if she does not withdraw her guilty pleas, the District Judge
may impose a sentence that is more severe than the sentence
contemplated in the plea agreement, up to the statutory
confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts supporting
the charges, which is attached to the Plea
Agreement. She confirmed that she is pleading guilty to
Counts 1, 34, and 38 of the Indictment because she
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
Counts 1, 34, and 38 of the Indictment 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, 34, and 38 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 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
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).