IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Criminal Action 2:17-cr-232 

 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM

JEREMY D. NIXON

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant Jeremy D. Nixon is charged in an Indictment with being

a felon in possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

The Indictment also contains a forfeiture count by which the United

States seeks to forfeit defendant’s interest in three (3) firearms and

associated ammunition. Indictment, ECF No. 10. Defendant originally

entered a not guilty plea to the charge. On May 30, 2018, defendant,

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

1 The file does not contain a plea agreement. At the change of plea

proceeding, defendant expressly agreed to the forfeiture count in the

Indictment.

1
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 confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts

supporting the charge, which was presented orally by the attorney for

the United States at the change of plea proceeding. 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. 

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. 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).

May 30, 2018 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

3