Opinion
7:22-CR-21-REW-EBA
04-21-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BRANDY SLONE, Defendant.
ORDER
Robert E. Wier, United States District Judge.
After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 42 (Minute Entry), Judge Atkins recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Brandy Slone's guilty plea and adjudge him guilty of Count One of the Indictment, as well as the forfeiture allegation. See DE 12 (Indictment); DE 45 (Plea Agreement); DE 43 (Recommendation). Judge Atkins expressly informed Slone of his right to object to the recommendation and secure de novo review from the undersigned. See DE 43 at 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 43, ACCEPTS Slone's guilty plea, and ADJUDGES Slone guilty of Count One and the forfeiture allegation of the Indictment;
2. Further, per Judge Atkins's unopposed recommendation and Defendant's agreement (DE 43 at 2 (Recommendation), DE 45 at ¶ 10 (Plea Agreement)) the Court provisionally FINDS that the property identified in the operative indictment (DE 12 at 4-5) is forfeitable and that Defendant has an interest in said property, and 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. Id. at (b)(4)(B); and
3. The Court will use a separate sentencing order.
Judge Atkins remanded Slone to custody post-plea. See DE 42. This was Slone's status in advance of the hearing. See DE 11; 19. Absent a contrary order, Slone will remain in custody pending sentencing.