IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Criminal Action 2:12-CR-0094

Judge Graham

DENNIS ANTONIO JUAREZ REYES,

aka Victor Colon Rosario

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On June 1, 2012, defendant Dennis Antonio Juarez Reyes entered

a plea, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure, see Consent to Transfer of Case for the Plea and

Sentence, Doc. No. 12, to Count 1 of an Indictment returned in the

District of Puerto Rico. See Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 18. 

Because the Indictment had been rendered moot by a Superseding Indictment

that had been inadvertently excluded from the Rule 20 documents received

from the District of Puerto Rico, however, defendant’s guilty plea was

thereafter withdrawn. Order, Doc. No. 22. On June 21, 2012, defendant

appeared with his counsel to plead guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, 

Plea Agreement, Doc. No. 25,1 to Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment,

which charges conspiracy to commit identification fraud in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1028. 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

1

The Plea Agreement includes a waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his sentence “unless the sentence exceeds the maximum permitted by statute or

exceeds the maximum penalty calculated under the Advisory Sentencing

Guidelines” as calculated in this case. Plea Agreement, Doc. No. 25, ¶ 13.

Case: 2:12-cr-00094-JLG-NMK Doc #: 29 Filed: 06/21/12 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
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. 

Prior to accepting defendant’s plea, the undersigned addressed

defendant 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

Superseding 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 him, his attorney and the attorney for

the United States and filed on June 21, 2012, Plea Agreement, Doc. No.

25, represents the only promises made by anyone regarding the charge in

the Superseding 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 his guilty plea. 

Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the material aspects of

the statement of facts supporting the charge, which is attached to the

Plea Agreement. He confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Count 1 of the

Superseding Indictment because he 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

1 of the Superseding Indictment is knowingly and voluntarily made with

2

Case: 2:12-cr-00094-JLG-NMK Doc #: 29 Filed: 06/21/12 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
understanding of the nature and meaning of the charge and of the

consequences of the plea. 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant Dennis Antonio

Juarez Reyes’s guilty plea to Count 1 of the Superseding 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. 

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).

3

Case: 2:12-cr-00094-JLG-NMK Doc #: 29 Filed: 06/21/12 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
June 21, 2012 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

4

Case: 2:12-cr-00094-JLG-NMK Doc #: 29 Filed: 06/21/12 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>