IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 vs. Criminal Action 2:13-cr-179 

 Judge Smith 

 

AARON S. WALDRUP 

 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 The United States of America and defendant Aaron S. Waldrup 

entered into a Plea Agreement, Doc. No. 11, whereby defendant agreed 

to enter a plea of guilty to an Information charging him with the 

knowing receipt of visual depictions of child pornography in 

interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2), (b)(1).1

 

On August 27, 2013, 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). Defendant 

also waived his right to an indictment in open court and after being 

advised of the nature of the charge and of his rights. See F.R. Crim. 

P. 7(b). 

 During the plea proceeding, the undersigned observed the 

appearance and responsiveness of defendant in answering questions. 

 1 The Plea Agreement, governed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), requires 

a sentence of 60 months, but does not stipulate other terms of sentence, 

including fine, supervised release or restitution. Under the Plea Agreement, defendant also agrees to the forfeiture alleged in the Information. 

Case: 2:13-cr-00179-GCS-NMK Doc #: 18 Filed: 08/27/13 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
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 Information 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 August 9, 2013, 

represents the only promises made 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 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 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 

understanding of the nature and meaning of the charge and of the 

consequences of the plea. 

Case: 2:13-cr-00179-GCS-NMK Doc #: 18 Filed: 08/27/13 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant Aaron S. 

Waldrup’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. 

 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: 2:13-cr-00179-GCS-NMK Doc #: 18 Filed: 08/27/13 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>