Opinion
6:22-CR-69-REW-HAI
02-24-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DARRELL EVERSOLE, Defendant.
ORDER
Robert E. Wier United States District Judge
After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 22 (Minute Entry), United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Darrell Eversole's guilty plea and adjudge him guilty of Count 1 and Count 3 of the Indictment. See DE 1 (Indictment); DE 23 at 2 (Recommendation of Acceptance of Guilty Plea). Judge Ingram expressly informed Eversole of his right to object to the recommendation and secure de novo review from the undersigned. See DE 23 at 3. The established, three-day objection period 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, with no objection from either party and on full review of the record, ORDERS as follows:
1. The Court ADOPTS DE 23, ACCEPTS Eversole's guilty plea, and ADJUDGES Eversole guilty of Count 1 and Count 3 of the Indictment.
2. Further, per Judge Ingram's recommendation, Defendant's agreement, and an audit of the rearraignment hearing, the Court provisionally FINDS that the property identified in the Indictment (DE 1 at 2-3) is forfeitable. Defendant has an interest in said property, and the Court preliminarily ADJUDGES Defendant's interest in such property FORFEITED. Under Criminal Rule 32.2, and absent pre-judgment objection, “the preliminary forfeiture order becomes final as to” Defendant at sentencing. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(A). The Court will further address forfeiture at that time. See id. at (b)(4)(B). Per the Plea Agreement, the forfeiture extends to Eversole's interest in all property listed in the Indictment's forfeiture provision.
3. The Court will issue a separate sentencing order.
Judge Ingram remanded Eversole to custody post-plea, which preserved his status entering the hearing. See DE 11; 22. Eversole will remain in custody pending sentencing, subject to intervening orders.