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(11) 

 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM 

CHEVEZ M. STANLEY 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant Chevez M. Stanley 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 two (2) counts 

of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 2 (Counts 16, 17). 

Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 38. The Superseding Indictment also 

contains a forfeiture provision. Id. On May 8, 2019, defendant, 

accompanied by his counsel, appeared for a change of plea proceeding 

during which defendant entered a guilty plea to all three counts in 

which he is charged.1 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 

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 drugs or alcohol. 

 1 The parties have not entered into a plea agreement. The parties agreed 

at the change of plea proceeding that defendant rejected the Government’s 

plea offer. Defendant expressly stated that his decision to plead guilty 

without a plea agreement was his own, voluntary decision. 
 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 his plea of guilty to 

those charges. 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 also confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts 

supporting the charge, which was presented at the change of plea 

hearing. He confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Counts 1, 16, and 

17 of the Superseding Indictment because he is in fact guilty of those 

charges. The Court concludes that there is a factual basis for the 

plea. 

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

16, and 17 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 

Counts 1, 16, and 17 of the Superseding Indictment be accepted. 

 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 
3 

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). 

May 8, 2019 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge