1 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

 EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 vs. Criminal Action 2:18-cr-075(1) 

 JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

JASON J. DELCOL 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant Jason J. Delcol is charged in the Superseding 

Information with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 

controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a public elementary school 

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841, 860(a) (Count 1); witness 

tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3)(Count 2); and 

possession of an unregistered machinegun and silencer in violation of 

26 U.S.C. § 5861(d). The Superseding Information also contains a 

forfeiture count. Superseding Information, ECF No. 57. The United 

States and defendant entered into a plea agreement, executed pursuant 

to the provisions of Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure, whereby defendant agreed to plead guilty to these charges.1 

On May 29, 2018, defendant, accompanied by his counsel, appeared for 

an arraignment and 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). 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). 

 1 The Plea Agreement, ECF No. 58, includes an appellate waiver provision 

which preserves only certain claims for appeal. Under the Plea Agreement, defendant also agrees to the forfeiture count contained in the Superseding 

Information.
 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 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 guilty 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 Information and the consequences of his pleas of guilty. 

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 18, 2018, 

represents the only promises made by anyone regarding the charges in 

the Superseding 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 pleas. 

 Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts 

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

confirmed that he is pleading guilty to the charges contained in the 

Superseding Information 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 1, 

2, and 3 of the Superseding Information are knowingly and voluntarily 
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 1, 2, and 3 of the Superseding 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). 

May 29, 2018 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge