IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Criminal Action 2:17-cr-266(1) 

 JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

KENNETH B. VAUGHN

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant Kenneth B. Vaughn is charged in an Indictment with

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1), possession

with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (Count 2), and possession with intent to

distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (Count 3).

Indictment, ECF No. 14. 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 conspiracy to possess

with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, a

lesser included offense of Count 1. On June 13, 2018, defendant,

accompanied by his counsel, appeared for a guilty 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 he entered his guilty plea, defendant was in full possession of

1
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 charges in the Indictment

and the consequences of his plea of guilty to the lesser included

offense of Count 1. 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 May 17, 2018, represents the only

promises made by anyone regarding the charges 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 accuracy of the statement of facts

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

confirmed that he is pleading guilty to the lesser included offense of

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 the lesser

included offense of 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 the

lesser included offense of Count 1 of the 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. 

2
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).

June 13, 2018 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

3