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(3) 

 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM 

CHARLEE MITCHELL 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant Charlee Mitchell is charged in a Superseding Indictment

with one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 1349 (Count 1) and two counts of actual bank fraud in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (Counts 6 and 7). Defendant and the 

United States entered into a 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 

Counts 1 and 7.1 On March 22, 2018, defendant, accompanied by her 

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 

time she entered her guilty pleas, defendant was in full possession of 

 1 Under the Plea Agreement, ECF No 158, defendant agreed to an order of 

restitution and the United States reserved the right to pursue a forfeiture 

money judgment against defendant. The Plea Agreement also includes an 

appellate waiver provision which preserves only certain claims for appeal. 
her 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 her 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 her pleas of guilty to Counts 1 and 

7. 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 pleas are voluntary. Defendant 

acknowledged that the plea agreement signed by her, her attorney and 

the attorney for the United States and filed on March 7, 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 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 her 

guilty pleas. 

 Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts 

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

confirmed that she is pleading guilty to Counts 1 and 7 of the 

Superseding Indictment because she is in fact guilty of those 

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

pleas. 

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

and 7 of the Superseding Indictment are knowingly and voluntarily made 

with understanding of the nature and meaning of the charges and of the 

consequences of the pleas. 

 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant’s guilty pleas to 

Counts 1 and 7 of the Superseding Indictment be accepted. Decision on 

acceptance or rejection of the plea agreement was deferred for 
3 

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). 

March 22, 2018 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge