Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Arzola

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

March 5, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff,
v.
ANDREW LOIUS ARZOLA a/k/a Andrew Louis Arzola Defendant.

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

PATRICIA T. MORRIS, 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 March 5, 2015, and plead guilty to count one of the first superseding indictment. In open court, I examined Defendant under oath, confirmed Defendant's consent, 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 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.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.