IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 2:17-cr-242

Judge Algenon L. Marbley

Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers

DAVID L. DOBBINS,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The United States of America and David L. Dobbins entered into a plea agreement

whereby Defendant agreed to enter a plea of guilty to Counts 1, 3 and 4 charging him with

possession with intent to distribute heroin, Counts 2 and 5 charging him with possession with

intent to distribute cocaine base, and Count 7 charging him with distribution of heroin and

cocaine which resulted in the death of another person, all violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1)(C). On August 29, 2018, Defendant, accompanied by his counsel, appeared at a hearing

to change his plea from not guilty to guilty as to Count 1 through 5 and 7 of the Superseding

Indictment. 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

Case: 2:17-cr-00242-ALM Doc #: 36 Filed: 08/29/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 91
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 him personally and in

open court and determined his competence to plead. Based on the observations of the

undersigned, and the statements made by Defendant and his counsel, Defendant understands the

nature and meaning of the charges returned in the Indictment and the consequences of his plea. 

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 July 20, 2018, represents the only

promises made to him by anyone regarding the charges in the Indictment. The undersigned

specifically addressed those provisions of the plea agreement regarding the agreed sentence

under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). The undersigned also specifically

addressed those provisions of the plea agreement regarding waiver of the right to appeal the

Court’s imposition of a sentence. Defendant was advised that the District Judge may accept or

reject the plea agreement or any term therein, including the agreed sentence. 

Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the material aspects of the statement of facts

supporting the charge. He confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 the

Superseding Indictment because he is in fact guilty of the offenses charged therein. The Court

concludes that there is a factual basis for the plea. 

2

Case: 2:17-cr-00242-ALM Doc #: 36 Filed: 08/29/18 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: 92
The Court concludes that Defendant’s plea of guilty to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the

Superseding Indictment is knowingly and voluntarily made with the understanding of the nature

and meaning of the charge and of the consequences of his plea. 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Defendant David L. Dobbins’ guilty plea to

Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 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. 

A written presentence investigation report will be prepared by the United States

Probation Office. Defendant will be asked to provide information and his 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). Response to

objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that the 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

waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex

Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district

3

Case: 2:17-cr-00242-ALM Doc #: 36 Filed: 08/29/18 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: 93
court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that

defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to

magistrate judge's report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate

review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994

(6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to specify the

issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).

DATE: August 29, 2018 s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers 

ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

4

Case: 2:17-cr-00242-ALM Doc #: 36 Filed: 08/29/18 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: 94