From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Bushnell

United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky
Feb 10, 2023
6:21-CR-061-REW-HAI-2 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 10, 2023)

Opinion

6:21-CR-061-REW-HAI-2

02-10-2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN BUSHNELL, Defendant.


ORDER

Robert E. Wier United States District Judge

After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 125 (Minute Entry), Judge Ingram recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Jonathan Bushnell's guilty plea and adjudge him guilty of Count One of the Indictment, see DE 12 (Indictment); DE 127 Plea Agreement; DE 128 (Recommendation). Judge Ingram expressly informed Bushnell of his right to object to the recommendation and secure de novo review from the undersigned. See DE 128 at 2-3. The established, three-day objection deadline has passed, and no party has objected.

The Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate[ judge]'s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v. Arn, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472 (1985); see also Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (noting that the Sixth Circuit has “long held that, when a defendant does ‘not raise an argument in his objections to the magistrate[ judge]'s report and recommendation . . . he has forfeited his right to raise this issue on appeal.'”) (quoting Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 176 (6th Cir. 1996) (quote brackets simplified)); United States v. Olano, 133 S.Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993) (distinguishing waiver and forfeiture); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2)-(3) (limiting de novo review duty to “any objection” filed); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (limiting de novo review duty to “those portions” of the recommendation “to which objection is made”).

The Court thus, with no objection from any party and on full review of the record, ORDERS as follows:

1. The Court ADOPTS DE 128, ACCEPTS Bushnell's guilty plea, and ADJUDGES Bushnell guilty of Count One of the Indictment;

2. The Court GRANTS DE 124. The record demonstrates that Bushnell meets the non-risk requirements of § 3143(a)(1); further, per § 3145(c), the Court finds that the particulars of his treatment progress and program status clearly are exceptional reasons making detention inappropriate at this juncture. The Court GRANTS DE 124 and ORDERS Bushnell to report to the custody of the United States Marshal by 1 p.m. on April 7, 2023; and

3. The Court will issue a separate sentencing order.


Summaries of

United States v. Bushnell

United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky
Feb 10, 2023
6:21-CR-061-REW-HAI-2 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 10, 2023)
Case details for

United States v. Bushnell

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN BUSHNELL, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky

Date published: Feb 10, 2023

Citations

6:21-CR-061-REW-HAI-2 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 10, 2023)