IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Criminal Action 2:11-CR-222(2)

Judge Smith

NANCY Y. RAYFUS,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The United States of America and defendant Nancy Y. Rayfus

entered into a plea agreement whereby defendant agreed to enter a plea

of guilty to Count 5 of the Indictment charging her with engaging in a

monetary transaction affecting interstate commerce involving criminally

derived property of a value greater than $10,000 in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 1957, 2. On December 29, 2011, defendant, accompanied by her

counsel, appeared for a change of plea proceeding. Defendant consented,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(3), to enter a guilty plea before a

Magistrate Judge. See United States v. Cukaj, 2001 WL 1587410 at *1 (6th

Cir. 2001) [Magistrate Judge may accept a guilty plea with the express

consent of the defendant and where no objection to the report and

recommendation is filed]; United States v. Torres, 258 F.3d 791, 796 (8th

Cir. 2001); United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261, 263-69 (5 Cir. 1997); th

United States v. Ciapponi, 77 F.3d 1247, 1251 (10 Cir. 1996). th

During the plea proceeding, the undersigned observed the appearance

and responsiveness of defendant in answering questions. Based on that

observation, the undersigned is satisfied that, at the time she entered

her guilty plea, defendant was in full possession of her faculties, was

not suffering from any apparent physical or mental illness, and was not

under the influence of narcotics or alcohol. 

Case: 2:11-cr-00222-MHW-NMK Doc #: 37 Filed: 12/29/11 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Prior to accepting defendant’s plea, the undersigned addressed

defendant personally and in open court and determined her competence to

plead. Based on the observations of the undersigned, defendant

understands the nature and meaning of the charge in the Indictment and

the consequences of the plea. Defendant was also addressed personally

and in open court and advised of each of the rights referred to in Rule

11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. 

Having engaged in the colloquy required by Rule 11, the Court

concludes that defendant’s plea is voluntary. Defendant acknowledged

that the plea agreement signed by her, her attorneys and the attorney for

the United States and filed on November 8, 2011, represents the only

promises made by anyone regarding the charges in the Indictment. 

Defendant was advised that the District Judge may accept or reject the

plea agreement and that, even if the Court refuses to accept any

provision of the plea agreement not binding on the Court, defendant may

nevertheless not withdraw her guilty plea. 

Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the material aspects of

the statement of facts supporting the charge. She confirmed that she is

pleading guilty to Count 5 of the Indictment because she is in fact

guilty of that offense. The Court concludes that there is a factual basis

for the plea. 

The Court concludes that defendant’s plea of guilty to Count

5 of the Indictment is knowingly and voluntarily made with understanding

of the nature and meaning of the charge and of the consequences of the

plea. 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant Nancy Y. Rayfus’

guilty plea to Count e of the Indictment be accepted. Decision on

acceptance or rejection of the plea agreement was deferred for

consideration by the District Judge after the preparation of a

presentence investigation report. 

2

Case: 2:11-cr-00222-MHW-NMK Doc #: 37 Filed: 12/29/11 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
In accordance with S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 32.1, and as expressly

agreed to by defendant through counsel, a written presentence

investigation report will be prepared by the United States Probation

Office. Defendant will be asked to provide information; defendant’s

attorney may be present if defendant so wishes. Objections to the

presentence report must be made in accordance with the rules of this

Court. 

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report

and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and

serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part

thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28

U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be

filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 

F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to

the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de

novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision

of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers,

Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

December 29, 2011 s/ Norah McCannn King 

 Date Norah M Cann King c

 United States Magistrate Judge

3

Case: 2:11-cr-00222-MHW-NMK Doc #: 37 Filed: 12/29/11 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>