From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Singh

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Sep 7, 2022
No. 21-20686 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 7, 2022)

Opinion

21-20686

09-07-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SAVINDER SINGH, Defendant.


JUDITH E. LEVY DISTRICT JUDGE

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

ANTHONY P. PATTI MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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 and his counsel appeared before me on September 6, 2022, and Defendant pleaded guilty to the only count in the indictment, namely possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, specifically 5 kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). In open court, I examined Defendant under oath, confirmed Defendant's consent and his ability to proceed in English, 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 Defendant's answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND: (1) that Defendant is competent to tender a plea; (2) that Defendant's plea was knowingly, intelligently made; and (3) that the offense to which Defendant pleaded guilty is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense. 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 a sentence.

III. REVIEW

Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec'y of Health & 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 E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.


Summaries of

United States v. Singh

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Sep 7, 2022
No. 21-20686 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 7, 2022)
Case details for

United States v. Singh

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SAVINDER SINGH, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division

Date published: Sep 7, 2022

Citations

No. 21-20686 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 7, 2022)