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-239 

 JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

ROBERT LEE LOVETT 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 The United States of America and Defendant Robert Lee Lovett 

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 a one-count Information 

charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924.1

 On October 27, 2017, 

Defendant, accompanied by his counsel, appeared for an arraignment and 

entry of a guilty plea. 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]; 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 charge 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. 

 1 The Information also contains a forfeiture count by which the United 

States seeks to forfeit Defendant’s interest in the seized firearm and 

associated ammunition. At the plea proceeding, the parties agreed that the 

Plea Agreement would be supplemented to include Defendant’s agreement to the 

forfeiture. 
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 

understands the nature and meaning of the charge in the Information 

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 acknowledged 

that the plea agreement signed by him, his attorney and the attorney 

for the United States and filed on October 18, 2017, and as 

supplemented in connection with the forfeiture provision, represents 

the only promises made by anyone regarding the charge 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 charge. He confirmed that he is 

pleading guilty to Count 1 of the Information 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 Information 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 Information be accepted. Decision on acceptance or rejection 
3 

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; his 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). 

October 27, 2017 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge