UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAESAR COOPER,

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 14-20463

Terrence G. Berg

United States District Judge

Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT, FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

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, along with counsel,

appeared before me on March 12, 2015. 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 defendants answers and demeanor, I FIND: (1) that defendant

is competent to tender a plea; (2) that defendant’s plea was knowingly,

intelligently made; and (3) that the offenses to which defendant pleaded guilty are

1

4:14-cr-20463-TGB-MJH Doc # 27 Filed 03/13/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 98
supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements

of the offenses. 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

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and

Recommendation, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service,

as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) and Local Rule

72.1(d). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right

of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and

Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1981). Filing objections that raise some

issues but fail to raise others with specificity will not preserve all the objections a

party might have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health

and 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 Local Rule

72.1(d)(2), any objections must be served on this Magistrate Judge.

2

4:14-cr-20463-TGB-MJH Doc # 27 Filed 03/13/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 99
Any objections must be labeled as “Objection No. 1,” “Objection No. 2,”

etc. Any objection must recite precisely the provision of this Report and

Recommendation to which it pertains. Not later than 14 days after service of an

objection, the opposing party may file a concise response proportionate to the

objections in length and complexity. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), Local Rule 72.1(d). 

The response must specifically address each issue raised in the objections, in the

same order, and labeled as “Response to Objection No. 1,” “Response to Objection

No. 2,” etc. If the Court determines that any objections are without merit, it may

rule without awaiting the response.

Date: March 13, 2015 s/Michael Hluchaniuk

Michael Hluchaniuk

United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on March 13, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send electronic

notification to all counsel of record and that I have hand-delivered to the following

non-ECF participants: United States Marshal and United States Pretrial Services

Agency.

s/Tammy Hallwood

Case Manager

(810) 341-7887

tammy_hallwood@mied.uscourts.gov

3

4:14-cr-20463-TGB-MJH Doc # 27 Filed 03/13/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 100