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-0054(6) 

 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM 

MILAHN M. WRIGHT 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant previously pleaded not guilty to a Superseding

Indictment charging 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 8). Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 38. 

The Superseding Indictment also contains a forfeiture count. The 

United States of America and defendant thereafter entered into an 

amended plea agreement, executed pursuant to the provisions of Rule 

11(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, whereby 

defendant agreed to enter a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the 

Superseding Indictment.1 On December 17, 2018, 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). 

 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 

 1 Under the Amended Plea Agreement, defendant agreed to the forfeiture 

provision contained in the Superseding Indictment, and agreed to a 

restitution obligation. The Amended Plea Agreement also includes an appellate 

waiver provision which preserves only certain claims for appeal or collateral 

challenge. 
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 charges in the Superseding

Indictment and the consequences of his 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 Amended Plea Agreement signed by him, his attorney and the 

attorney for the United States and filed on December 17, 2018, 

represents the only promises made by anyone regarding the charges in 

the Superseding Indictment. Defendant was advised that the District 

Judge may accept or reject the Amended 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 statement of facts 

supporting the charge, which is attached to the Amended Plea 

Agreement. He confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Count 1 of the 

Superseding 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 charge 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 
3 

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). 

December 17, 2018 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge