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-034 

 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM 

SON MINH LE 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 The United States of America and defendant Son Minh Le 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 Count 1 of the 

Information, which charges him with bank fraud in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 1344(2).1 On March 8, 2018, 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). 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 

time he entered his guilty plea, defendant was in full possession of 

 1 The Plea Agreement, ECF No. 22, makes no mention of the forfeiture 

count contained in the Information, but contains a restitution provision. The 

Plea Agreement also includes an appellate waiver provision which preserves 

only certain claims for appeal. 
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 the plea 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 February 12, 2018, 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, which is attached to the 

Plea Agreement.2 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 

 2 The statement of facts does not address one of the essential elements 

of the offense of bank fraud, i.e., that the bank was insured by the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation. However, at the plea hearing, defendant agreed 

that, at the time of the alleged offense, the Huntington National Bank was 

insured by the FDIC. 
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; 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). 

March 8, 2018 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge