From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Gay

United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky
Feb 6, 2023
6:22-CR-72-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky. Feb. 6, 2023)

Opinion

6:22-CR-72-REW-HAI

02-06-2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH DARRELL GAY, Defendant.


ORDER

ROBERT E. WIER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 25 (Minute Entry), Judge Ingram recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Kenneth Darrell Gay's guilty plea and adjudge him guilty of the lesser-included offense of Count One of the Indictment (DE 1). See DE 28 (Recommendation); see also DE 27 (Plea Agreement). Judge Ingram expressly informed Defendant of his right to object to the recommendation and to secure de novo review from the undersigned. See DE 28 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) (quoting Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 176 (6th Cir. 1996)) (alterations adopted) (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.'”); 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 28, ACCEPTS Defendant's guilty plea, and ADJUDGES Defendant guilty of the lesser-included offense of Count One of the Indictment (DE 1), that is, the § 841 offense, without aggravating quantity;
2. The Court will issue a separate sentencing order.

Judge Ingram remanded Gay to custody post-plea, which preserved his status following arraignment. See DE 12 & DE 25. As such, Gay will remain in custody pending sentencing, subject to intervening orders.


Summaries of

United States v. Gay

United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky
Feb 6, 2023
6:22-CR-72-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky. Feb. 6, 2023)
Case details for

United States v. Gay

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KENNETH DARRELL GAY, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky

Date published: Feb 6, 2023

Citations

6:22-CR-72-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky. Feb. 6, 2023)