IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 vs. Criminal Action 2:12-cr-242 

 Judge Graham 

 

MARTIN DALE GEYER 

 

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 The United States of America and defendant Martin Dale 

Geyer entered into a plea agreement whereby defendant agreed to enter 

a plea of guilty to three (3) counts of a nine count Indictment: 

Count 6 charging mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, Count 8 

charging possession of a controlled substance in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 844(a), and possession of a firearm by a user of a controlled 

substance in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). On September 23, 

2013, defendant, accompanied by his counsel, appeared for a competency 

hearing and a change of plea proceeding. 

Competency Hearing: 

 On May 24, 2013, at the request of defendant’s attorney and 

without objection by the United States, defendant was ordered to 

undergo a competency evaluation. Order, Doc. No. 20. Defendant was 

thereafter evaluated by Michael C. Mobley, M.D., who reported his 

opinion that defendant is not suffering from a mental disease or 

defect that renders him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is 

unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings 

against him or to assist properly in his defense. Independent 

Psychiatric Medical Examination, Doc. No. 28 (sealed). At the 

September 23, 2013 hearing, all parties represented that they had 

received a copy of Dr. Mobley’s report, had reviewed the report, did 

Case: 2:12-cr-00242-JLG Doc #: 32 Filed: 09/23/13 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

not disagree with Dr. Mobley’s opinion and had no further evidence or 

information regarding defendant’s competence to participate in the 

proceedings against him. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241(c), 4247(d). 

 Under these circumstances, it is RECOMMENDED that defendant be 

found competent to participate fully in the proceedings against him. 

Change of Plea Proceeding: 

On May 24, 2013, Consent to Plead Guilty before a U.S. Magistrate 

Judge, Doc. No. 18, and again on September 23, 2013, 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 change of 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 pleas, 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 pleas, 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 charges returned in the 

Indictment and the consequences of the pleas to Counts 6, 8 and 9. 

Defendant was also addressed personally and in open court and advised 

Case: 2:12-cr-00242-JLG Doc #: 32 Filed: 09/23/13 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
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 pleas are voluntary. Defendant 

acknowledged that the plea agreement signed by him, his attorney and 

the attorney for the United States and filed on May 24, 2013, Plea 

Agreement, Doc. No. 15, represents the only promises made by anyone 

regarding the charges in the Indictment. Defendant specifically 

acknowledged that, with certain limited exceptions, the Plea Agreement

includes a waiver of his right to challenge his conviction and 

sentence. 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 pleas. 

 Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the material aspects of the 

statement of facts supporting the charges. See Corrected Statement of 

Facts, Doc. No. 17. He confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Counts 

6, 8 and 9 of the Indictment because he is in fact guilty of the 

offenses charged in those counts. The Court concludes that there is a 

factual basis for the pleas. 

 The Court concludes that defendant’s pleas of guilty to Counts 6, 

8 and 9 of the Indictment are knowingly and voluntarily made with 

understanding of the nature and meaning of the charges and of the 

consequences of the pleas. 

 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant Martin Dale Geyer’s 

guilty pleas to Counts 6, 8, and 9 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. 

Case: 2:12-cr-00242-JLG Doc #: 32 Filed: 09/23/13 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4 

 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). 

September 23, 2013 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:12-cr-00242-JLG Doc #: 32 Filed: 09/23/13 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>