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-261(2) 

 JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

ANTWAN DESHAWN THOMAS 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant previously pleaded not guilty to a Superseding 

Indictment charging him with one (1) count of robbery by threat or 

violence in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (Count 11), 

and one (1) count of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a 

crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 12). 

Superseding Indictment, ECF No. 46. The United States of America and 

defendant thereafter 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 11 and 12 of the Superseding Indictment.1 On September 12, 

2018, defendant, accompanied by his 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 

 1 The Plea Agreement, ECF No. 47, includes an appellate waiver provision 

which preserves only certain claims for appeal. 
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 

Indictment and the consequences of plea 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 plea agreement signed by him, his attorney and 

the attorney for the United States and filed on May 25, 2018, 

represents the only promises made by anyone regarding the charges 

against him 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 his guilty plea. 

 Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts 

supporting the charge, which is attached to the Plea Agreement and 

which was orally supplemented at the change of plea proceeding.2 He 

confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Counts 11 and 12 of the 

Superseding Indictment 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 Counts 11 

and 12 of the Superseding Indictment are knowingly and voluntarily 

 2 The written statement of facts attached to the Plea Agreement does not 

address the interstate commerce component of the offenses. At the change of 

plea proceeding, the attorney for the United States proffered facts in 

support of that element, with which defendant and his attorney agreed. 
3 

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 11 and 12 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. 

 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). 

September 12, 2018 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge