IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 2:11-CR-0018

Judge Peter C. Economus

Magistrate Judge E. A. Preston Deavers

DAVID BARTSCH,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The United States of America and Defendant David Bartsch entered into a plea agreement

whereby Defendant agreed to enter a plea of guilty to an Information charging him with

negligently failing to report all instances of noncompliance with a permit in a Clean Water Act

report in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(1). On February 17, 2011, Defendant, accompanied

by his counsel, appeared for an arraignment. 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 (5th

Cir. 1997); United States v. Ciapponi, 77 F.3d 1247, 1251 (10th Cir. 1996). 

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 he entered his guilty plea, Defendant was in full possession of his 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-00018-PCE-EPD Doc #: 9 Filed: 02/17/11 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Prior to accepting Defendant’s plea, the undersigned addressed him personally and in open

court and determined his competence to plead. Based on the observations of the undersigned,

Defendant understands the nature and meaning of the charge returned in the Information and the

consequences of his 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 him on October 11,

2010, his attorney on October 18, 2010 and the attorney for the United States on November 20,

2010, represents the only promises made to him by anyone regarding the charge in the

Information. 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 is guilty plea. 

Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the material aspects of the investigating officer's

statement of facts supporting the charge. He confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Count One

of the Information because he is in fact guilty of the offense charged in the Information. The

Court concludes that there is a factual basis for the plea. 

The Court concludes that Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Information is

knowingly and voluntarily made with the understanding of the nature and meaning of the charge

and of the consequences of his plea. 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Defendant David Bartsch’s guilty plea to Count One

of the Information 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. 

In accordance with S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 32.1, a written presentence investigation report

will be prepared by the United States Probation Office. Defendant will be asked to provide

2

Case: 2:11-cr-00018-PCE-EPD Doc #: 9 Filed: 02/17/11 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
information and his 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).

DATE: February 17, 2011 s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

3

Case: 2:11-cr-00018-PCE-EPD Doc #: 9 Filed: 02/17/11 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>