1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 vs. Criminal Action 2:13-cr-0047 Judge Smith 

JOHN SCOTT DIAMOND 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

 The United States of America and defendant John Scott 

Diamond entered into a plea agreement whereby defendant agreed to 

enter pleas of guilty to Counts One and Four of an Information

charging him with attempted income tax evasion in violation of 26 

U.S.C. § 7201 and structuring transactions to evade reporting 

requirements in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3). On March 22, 

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. 

Based on that observation, the undersigned is satisfied that, at the 

time he entered his guilty plea, defendant was in full possession of 

Case: 2:13-cr-00047-GCS-NMK Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/25/13 Page: 1 of 4 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 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 Information and the consequences of the pleas to Counts One and 

Four. 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 pleas are voluntary. Defendant 

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

the attorney for the United States and filed on February 25, 2013, 

represents the only promises made by anyone regarding the charges 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 pleas. 

 Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the material aspects of 

the statement of facts supporting the charges. He confirmed that he 

is pleading guilty to Counts One and Four of the Information because 

he is in fact guilty of the offenses charged in those counts of the 

Information. The Court concludes that there is a factual basis for 

the pleas. 

 The Court concludes that defendant’s pleas of guilty to 

Counts One and Four of the Information are knowingly and voluntarily 

made with understanding of the nature and meaning of the charges and 

of the consequences of the pleas. 

Case: 2:13-cr-00047-GCS-NMK Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/25/13 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3 

 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant Jon Scott 

Diamond’s guilty pleas to Counts One and Four 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, 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 

Case: 2:13-cr-00047-GCS-NMK Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/25/13 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States 

v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

March 22, 2013 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah Mc

Cann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:13-cr-00047-GCS-NMK Doc #: 12 Filed: 03/25/13 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>