UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14-20789

v.

DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

ZACHARY RICHARD WILKS MAGISTRATE JUDGE PATRICIA T. MORRIS

a/k/a Zachary Richard Chamberlain,

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 18, 2015, 

and plead guilty to count one of the 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.

Case 1:14-cr-20789-TLL-PTM ECF No. 29, PageID.103 Filed 03/19/15 Page 1 of 3
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 19, 2015 s/ patricia t. morriS

Patricia T. Morris

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:14-cr-20789-TLL-PTM ECF No. 29, PageID.104 Filed 03/19/15 Page 2 of 3
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 19, 2015 By s/Kristen Krawczyk, 

 Case Manager to Magistrate Judge Morris

Case 1:14-cr-20789-TLL-PTM ECF No. 29, PageID.105 Filed 03/19/15 Page 3 of 3