IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 vs. Criminal Action 2:12-cr-219 

 Judge Smith 

 

DAVID AARON WOODARD, Sr. 

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 The United States of America and defendant David Aaron 

Woodard, Sr., entered into a plea agreement1

 whereby defendant agreed 

to enter a plea of guilty to Count 2 of the Indictment, which charges 

him with corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due 

administration of the Internal Revenue laws in violation of 26 U.S.C. 

§ 7212(a). On August 27, 2013, defendant, accompanied by his 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 (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 

 1 The Plea Agreement, Doc. No. 18, was amended at the change of plea 

proceeding to make clear that the agreement is governed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11(c)(1)(C) and requires the imposition of the sentence agreed to by the 

parties in ¶ 10. 

Case: 2:12-cr-00219-GCS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/27/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
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 

Count 2 of the Indicment 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 Amended Plea Agreement 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 Amended 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. He confirmed that he is 

pleading guilty to Count 2 of the Indictment because he is in fact 

guilty of the offense charged in that count. The Court concludes that 

there is a factual basis for the plea. 

 The Court concludes that defendant’s plea of guilty to 

Count 2 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 David Aaron 

Woodard, Sr.’s guilty plea to Count 2 of the Indictment be accepted. 

Decision on acceptance or rejection of the Plea Agreement was deferred 

Case: 2:12-cr-00219-GCS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/27/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
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). 

August 27, 2013 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:12-cr-00219-GCS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/27/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>