UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, CASE NO: 14-20309

v. DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATRICIA T. MORRIS

GALE BRIAN GILSON,

Defendant.

/

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 and his counsel appeared before me on November 4, 2014, and pled

guilty to count 1 of the Indictment. According to the plea agreement, Count 2 will be dismissed.

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, intelligentlymade; 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.

1:14-cr-20309-TLL-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 11/04/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 58
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 to Count 1 of the Indictment 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 partymay 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.

Date: November 4, 2014 /s Patricia T. Morris

Patricia T. Morris

United States Magistrate Judge

2

1:14-cr-20309-TLL-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 11/04/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 59
CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this

date, electronically served on counsel of record, and served on U.S. District Judge

Thomas Ludington in the traditional manner.

Date: November 4, 2014 By s/Jean L. Broucek 

Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Morris

3

1:14-cr-20309-TLL-PTM Doc # 15 Filed 11/04/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 60