IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Criminal Action 2:17-cr-246(1)

JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

SHANE RYAN HAMMOND

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant Shane Ryan Hammond is charged in a Superseding

Information filed in this Court with one count of kidnapping in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1), one count of impersonating a

federal agent in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 913, two counts of wire

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and one count of interstate

transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

2312. Superseding Information, ECF No. 12. The Superseding Information

also contains two forfeiture counts. Id. Defendant is also charged, in

an Information filed in the Southern District of West Virginia, see

Attachment A to Amended Plea Agreement, ECF No. 10, with one count of

kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1).1

 The United States

of America and defendant entered into an Amended 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 all these charges.2 On June 7, 2018, defendant,

accompanied by his counsel, appeared for an arraignment and the entry

of guilty pleas. Defendant consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(3), to enter a guilty plea before a Magistrate Judge. See

1 The defendant and the prosecuting authorities for both Districts have

agreed, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure, to the transfer of this Information to this District. See Rule 20

Paperwork, ECF No. 18. The Amended Plea Agreement in this case is intended to

resolve the West Virginia matter as well. 2 In the Amended Plea Agreement, defendant agreed to the forfeiture

counts contained in the Superseding Information and also agreed to an order of

restitution. The Amended Plea Agreement also contains an appellate waiver

provision.

1
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). Defendant also

waived his right to an indictment in open court and after being

advised of the nature of the charges and of his rights. See Fed. R.

Crim P. 7(b). 

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 pleas, 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 pleas, 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 in the Superseding

Information filed in this Court and of the charge in the Information

filed in the Southern District of West Virginia. He also understands

the consequences of his pleas 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 pleas are voluntary. Defendant

acknowledged that the Amended Plea Agreement signed by him, his

attorney and the attorney for the United States and filed on April 16,

2018, represents the only promises made by anyone regarding the

charges in the Superseding Information and in the Information. 

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 accuracy of the material aspects of the

statement of facts supporting the charges, which is attached to the

Amended Plea Agreement. He confirmed that he is pleading guilty to

all the charges contained in the Superseding Information and in the

Information because he 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 all

charges against him 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 through 5 of the Superseding Information filed in this Court

and to Count 1 of the Information originally filed in the Southern

District of West Virginia and transferred to this District 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. 

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). 

3
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).

June 7, 2018 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge