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-188(1) 

 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM 

JERRELL EDWARD HARRISON 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 The United States of America and defendant Jerrell Edward 

Harrison entered into a plea agreement1

 whereby defendant agreed to 

enter a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment, which charges him 

with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). On January 9, 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]; 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 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 or alcohol. 

 1 The Plea Agreement, ECF No. 18, was executed pursuant to the 

provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) and includes an appellate waiver 

provision. Under the Plea Agreement, defendant also agrees to the forfeiture 

provision in the Indictment. 
 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 in the Indictment and 

the consequences of his plea of guilty to that charge. 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 November 28, 2017, represents the 

only promises made by anyone regarding the charge in the 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, 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 and 

which was amended at the change of plea proceeding.2

 Defendant 

confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment

because he is in fact guilty of that offense. The Court concludes 

that there is a factual basis for the plea. 

 2 At the change of plea proceeding, the Government orally moved to amend 

the Statement of Facts to include the following language: 

The Glock pistol referred to in Count 1 of the Indictment was not 

manufactured in the State of Ohio and, therefore, travelled 

across state lines prior to the defendant’s possession of it on 

May 15, 2016. 

Defendant had no objection to the Government’s oral motion, which was 

thereupon granted by the Court. 
3 

 The Court concludes that defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of 

the 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 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. 

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). 

January 9, 2018 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge