1 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 vs. Criminal Action 2:17-cr-054(9) 

 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM 

DONTE RIPPEY-YOUNG 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant Donte Rippey-Young previously pleaded not guilty to a 

Superseding Indictment that charges him with conspiracy to commit bank 

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count 1), and bank fraud in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 2 (Count 2). Superseding Indictment, 

ECF No. 38. The Superseding Indictment also includes a forfeiture 

provision. Id. The United States and defendant thereafter entered into 

a plea agreement, executed under the provisions of Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of 

the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, whereby defendant agreed to 

enter a plea of guilty to Count 1.1 On July 17, 2020, defendant, 

accompanied by his counsel, participated in a change of plea 

proceeding.2 

After being advised of his right to appear personally and with 

his counsel and after consulting with his counsel, defendant consented 

to appear by videoconference. He was accompanied by his counsel. 

 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, 25 

Fed. Appx. 290, 291(6th Cir. 2001)(Magistrate Judge may accept a guilty 

1 In addition to specifying sentencing terms, the Plea Agreement, ECF 

No. 457, includes an appellate waiver provision that preserves only certain 

claims for appeal and collateral challenge. Under the Plea Agreement, defendant also agrees to a restitution obligation in an amount to be 

determined by the Court. Defendant also acknowledges that the United States 

may institute forfeiture proceedings. 2 Following a competency hearing held by the District Judge prior to the 

change of plea hearing, defendant was found to be competent. 

Case: 2:17-cr-00054-JLG-NMK Doc #: 504 Filed: 07/17/20 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 1558
plea with the express consent of the defendant and where no objection 

to the report and recommendation is filed). 

 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, other drugs, 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 charges against him in the 

Superseding Indictment and the consequences of the plea of guilty to 

Count 1. 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 6, 2019, represents the only 

promises made by anyone regarding the charges against him in the 

Superseding Indictment. Defendant was advised that the District Judge 

may accept or reject the plea agreement. Defendant was further advised 

that, if the Court refuses to accept the plea agreement, defendant 

will have the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea but that, if he 

does not withdraw his guilty plea under those circumstances, the 

District Judge may impose a sentence that is more severe than the 

sentence contemplated in the plea agreement, up to the statutory 

maximum. 

 Defendant confirmed the accuracy 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 

Case: 2:17-cr-00054-JLG-NMK Doc #: 504 Filed: 07/17/20 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 1559
3 

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 

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

consequences of the plea. 

 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant’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. 

Case: 2:17-cr-00054-JLG-NMK Doc #: 504 Filed: 07/17/20 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 1560
See United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878 (6th Cir. 2019); 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

July 17, 2020 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:17-cr-00054-JLG-NMK Doc #: 504 Filed: 07/17/20 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 1561