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-0190 

 JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

RAUL AVILES-ORTIZ 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant Raul Aviles-Ortiz is charged in the Indictment with the 

unlawful reentry into the United States after having been convicted of 

a felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1). On October 12, 

2017, defendant, accompanied by his counsel and with the assistance of 

a Spanish interpreter, appeared for a change of plea proceeding 

pursuant to a plea agreement. 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 change of 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 competent, 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 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 October 10, 2017, and as 

supplemented at the change of plea proceeding on October 12, 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 and that, even if the Court 

refuses to accept any provision of the plea agreement not binding on 

the Court, defendant may nevertheless not withdraw his guilty plea. 

 Defendant confirmed the Government’s statement of facts 

supporting the charge, which is attached to the Plea Agreement. He 

stated 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. 

 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. 

 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. At the request of the parties, the Court DIRECTS that the 

presentence report be prepared in expedited fashion. 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. 
3 

 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). 

October 12, 2017 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge