UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14-20668

v.

DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

ANDREW LOIUS ARZOLA MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATRICIA T. MORRIS

a/k/a Andrew Louis Arzola

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 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.

1:14-cr-20668-TLL-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 03/05/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 68
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.

Date: March 5, 2015 /s patricia t. morris

Patricia T. Morris

United States Magistrate Judge

1:14-cr-20668-TLL-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 03/05/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 69
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: March 5, 2015 By s/Kristen Krawczyk, 

 Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Morris

1:14-cr-20668-TLL-PTM Doc # 21 Filed 03/05/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 70