UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

RAY CORNELL YOUNG, 

 Defendant. 

 Case No. 2:17-CR-00059-JLG 

 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM 

 Magistrate Judge Jolson 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 The United States of America and Defendant entered into a plea agreement whereby 

Defendant agreed to enter a plea of guilty to Count I of the Information, which charges him with 

Possession with Intent to Distribute fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1). 841 

(b)(1)(C), and to a forfeiture count. (Doc. 3). On March 27, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., Defendant, 

accompanied by his counsel, appeared before the undersigned. 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, 25 F. App’x 290, 291 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding that a 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 proceeding, the undersigned observed the appearance and responsiveness of 

Defendant in answering questions. Based on those observations, 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. 

Case: 2:17-cr-00059-JLG Doc #: 13 Filed: 03/27/17 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 23
 Prior to accepting Defendant’s plea, the undersigned addressed Defendant personally and 

in open court and determined his competence to plead. Based on the undersigned’s observations, 

Defendant understands the nature and meaning of the charges returned in the Information and the 

consequences of the plea of guilty to Count I and the forfeiture count of the Information. 

Defendant was also addressed personally 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 March 16, 2017, 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 I and the forfeiture 

count of the Information because he is in fact guilty of the offense charged in Count I and the 

forfeiture count of the Information. The Court concludes that there is a factual basis for the plea. 

 The Court concludes that Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count I and the forfeiture count of 

the Information is knowingly and voluntarily made with understanding of the nature and 

meaning of the charges and of the consequences of the plea. 

 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s guilty plea to Count I and the 

forfeiture count of the Information be accepted. Decision on acceptance or rejection of the plea 

Case: 2:17-cr-00059-JLG Doc #: 13 Filed: 03/27/17 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 24
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, and 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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b). Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a 

copy thereof. Fed. 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). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: March 27, 2017 /s/Kimbery A. Jolson 

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case: 2:17-cr-00059-JLG Doc #: 13 Filed: 03/27/17 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 25