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-058(8) 

 JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

CYNTHIA APPIAGYEI 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant Cynthia Appiagyei previously pleaded not guilty to an 

Indictment charging her with conspiracy to commit money laundering in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 1), five counts of concealment 

of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) (Counts 5, 

24, 26, 36, and 42), and two counts of money laundering in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Counts 57 and 63). The Indictment also includes a 

forfeiture count. Indictment, ECF No. 23. The United States of America 

and defendant thereafter 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 enter a plea of guilty 

to the conspiracy charge in Count 1 of the Indictment.1 On February 6, 

2019, defendant, accompanied by her counsel, appeared for a change of 

plea proceeding.2 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 

 1 Under the Plea Agreement, ECF No. 90, agreed to forfeit $84,800.00, 

which represents the amount that she personally obtained in connection with 

Count 1, and to a restitution obligation – jointly and severally with her codefendants – in the amount of $3,385,081.05. The Plea Agreement also includes 

an appellate waiver provision which preserves only certain claims for appeal. 2 During the plea proceeding, defendant – a long-time naturalized 

citizen of the United States – was advised by the Court of the possible 

(although perhaps unlikely) immigration consequences of her guilty plea. 

After consultation with her counsel, defendant indicated that she understood 

those possible consequences. 
consent of the defendant and where no objection to the report and 

recommendation is filed). 

 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 she entered her guilty plea, defendant was in full possession of 

her 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 her competence 

to plead. Based on the observations of the undersigned, defendant 

understands the nature and meaning of the charges in the Indictment

and the consequences of her plea of guilty to Count 1 of the 

Indictment. 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.3 Defendant acknowledged 

that the plea agreement signed by her, her attorney and the attorney 

for the United States and filed on January 7, 2019, represents the 

only promises made by anyone regarding the charges in the Indictment. 

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 her guilty plea. 

 Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts 

supporting the charge, which is attached to the Plea Agreement. She 

confirmed that she is pleading guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment

because she is in fact guilty of the conspiracy offense charged in 

 3 At several points in the plea colloquy, defendant hesitated in 

answering some of the Court’s questions. The Court gave defendant the 

opportunity to confer with her counsel and expressly advised defendant that 

she need not go forward with the change of plea proceeding. After conferring 

with her counsel, defendant stated that she wished to go forward with the 

change of plea proceeding. She expressly confirmed that her plea of guilty 

was her own free and voluntary act. 
3 

that count. 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 Indictment 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 Indictment 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). 

February 6, 2019 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge