Opinion
6:22-CR-70-REW-HAI
04-20-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SHERRY L. SPENCER, Defendant.
ORDER
Robert E. Wier, United States District Judge.
After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 29 (Minute Entry), Judge Ingram recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Sherry L. Spencer's guilty plea and adjudge her guilty of Count One, Count Two, and the forfeiture allegation in the indictment. See DE 31 at 2 (Recommendation); see also DE 1 (Indictment); DE 24 (Plea Agreement). Judge Ingram expressly informed Spencer of her right to object to the recommendation and to secure de novo review from the undersigned. See DE 31 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) (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, 113 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 31, ACCEPTS Defendant's guilty plea, and ADJUDGES Defendant guilty of Counts One and Two of the indictment.
2. Further, per Judge Ingram's recommendation, the Defendant's agreement, and an audit of the rearraignment hearing, the Court provisionally FINDS that the property identified in the indictment (DE 1 at 3-4) 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).
3. The Court will issue a separate sentencing order.
Judge Ingram remanded Spencer to custody post-plea, which preserved her status following arraignment. See DE 13. As such, Spencer will remain in custody pending sentencing, subject to intervening orders.