Opinion
Case No. 14-20236-2
03-12-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HARRY BRINK, Defendant.
Linda V. Parker United States District Judge MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT , FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY
I. REPORT AND FINDINGS
This case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties, defendant's offer of a plea of guilty. Defendant, along with counsel, appeared before me on March 12, 2015. In open court, I examined defendant, under oath, confirmed defendant's consent, and then advised and questioned defendant, regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Based upon defendants answers and demeanor, I FIND: (1) that defendant is competent to tender a plea; (2) that defendant's plea was knowingly, intelligently made; and (3) that the offenses to which defendant pleaded guilty are supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offenses. Therefore, I have ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.
II. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, subject to the Court's consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, defendant's plea be accepted, defendant be adjudged guilty, and the Court impose sentence.
III. REVIEW
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service, as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule 72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.
Any objections must be labeled as "Objection No. 1," "Objection No. 2," etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the objections in length and complexity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), Local Rule 72.1(d). The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the same order, and labeled as "Response to Objection No. 1," "Response to Objection No. 2," etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may rule without awaiting the response. Date: March 12, 2015
s/Michael Hluchaniuk
Michael Hluchaniuk
United States Magistrate Judge
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 12, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send electronic notification to all counsel of record and that I have hand-delivered to the following non-ECF participants: United States Marshal and United States Pretrial Services Agency.
s/Tammy Hallwood
Case Manager
(810)341-7887
tammy_hallwood@mied.uscourts.gov