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-267 

 JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

CARLOS ALFREDO MILLAN-CORONEL 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 The United States of America and defendant Carlos Alfredo MillanCoronel entered into a plea agreement1

 whereby defendant agreed to 

enter a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Information, which charges 

him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin in 

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. On December 20, 2017, defendant, 

accompanied by his counsel,2

 appeared for an arraignment and entry of 

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]; 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. 

Based on that observation, the undersigned is satisfied that, at the 

 1 The Plea Agreement, ECF No. 13, was executed pursuant to the 

provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) and includes an appellate waiver 

provision. Under the Plea Agreement, defendant also agrees to the forfeiture 

count contained in the Information. 2 A Spanish interpreter was available to defendant. However, defendant – 

a native English speaker – did not need the services of the interpreter. 
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 November 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. Defendant was further advised that, if the Court 

refuses to accept the plea agreement, defendant will have the 

opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea but that, if he does not 

withdraw his guilty plea, the District Judge may impose a sentence 

that is more severe than the sentence contemplated in the plea 

agreement, up to the statutory maximum. 

 Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the material aspects of the 

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

Plea Agreement. 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. 
3 

 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant’s guilty plea to Count 

1 of the Information 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). 

December 20, 2017 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge