IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Case No. 3:17CR195 

 Plaintiff, 

 District Judge Walter H. Rice 

 v. Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 

Kathren Warren, 

 

 Defendant. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

 This case came before the Court for plea proceedings on December 22, 2017 following 

referral to the undersigned pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 59. Assistant United States Attorney 

Timothy Landry appeared on behalf of the Government. Thomas W. Anderson appeared and 

represented Defendant, whom also appeared. Defendant, through counsel, orally consented to 

proceed before the United States Magistrate Judge for the change of plea hearing. 

The undersigned examined Defendant under oath as to her understanding of the plea 

agreement, which Defendant acknowledged in open court. The undersigned also examined 

Defendant under oath concerning the effect of entering a plea pursuant to that Agreement. 

Having conducted that colloquy, the Magistrate Judge concludes that Defendant understands the 

rights waived by entering a guilty plea, and is fully competent to enter a guilty plea. 

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge concludes that Defendant’s guilty plea to 

Counts 1 and 2 of the Information is a knowing, intelligent and voluntary plea. The Court also 

concludes that the Statement of Facts made part of the Plea Agreement, the truth of which 

 1

 Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation. 
Defendant acknowledged in open court, provides a sufficient factual basis for a finding of guilt. 

It is therefore respectfully recommended that: (1) the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea as to 

Counts One and Two of the Information, and (2) Defendant be found guilty as charged in 

Counts One and Two of the Information. 

Prior to the plea hearing, Judge Rice had referred Defendant for a pre-sentence 

investigation. At the conclusion of the plea hearing, the Defendant signed the Order setting 

Conditions of Release and the Defendant was released on bond. 

December 27, 2017 s/Michael J. Newman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS 

 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), any party may serve and file specific, written objections to the 

proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being served with this Report 

and Recommendation. This period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) if served on you by 

electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, however, this Report and 

Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS by 

application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Parties may seek an extension of the deadline to file objections by 

filing a motion for extension, which the Court may grant upon a showing of good cause. 

Any objections filed shall specify the portions of the Report and Recommendation objected to, 

and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and 

Recommendation is based, in whole or in part, upon matters occurring of record at an oral hearing, the 

objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or such portions of it as all 

parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless the assigned District Judge 

otherwise directs. 

A party may respond to another party’s objections within FOURTEEN days after being served 

with a copy thereof. As noted above, this period is not extended by virtue of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) if served 

on you by electronic means, such as via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system. If, however, this Report and 

Recommendation was served upon you by mail, this deadline is extended to SEVENTEEN DAYS by 

application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). 

Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 

1981).