IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Case No. 3:18CR-52 

 Plaintiff, 

 District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

 v. Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 

EDUARDO HERNANDEZ-RUIZ, 

 

 

 Defendant. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

 This case came before the Court for an arraignment, waiver of indictment, and plea 

proceedings on April 17, 2018 following referral to the undersigned pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 

59. Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Hunt appeared on behalf of the Government. 

Attorney F. Arthur Mullins appeared and represented Defendant. Defendant, through counsel, 

orally consented to proceed before the United States Magistrate Judge for these proceedings. 

Claudia Rubio Samulowitz a federally certified Spanish language interpreter, was also present 

and interpreted the proceedings for Defendant. Defendant acknowledged that he understood the 

Spanish language interpreter and expressed no concerns over the translation of the proceedings. 

Defendant also knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived indictment. 

The undersigned examined Defendant under oath, with the assistance of a qualified 

Spanish language interpreter, as to his understanding of the Plea Agreement, which Defendant 

acknowledged in open court. The undersigned also examined Defendant under oath concerning 

 1

 Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation. 
the effect of entering a plea pursuant to that Agreement. Having conducted that colloquy, the 

Magistrate Judge concludes that Defendant fully understands the rights waived by entering a 

guilty plea, fully understands all possible immigration consequences arising from that plea, and 

is fully competent to enter a guilty plea. 

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

Count 1 of the Information (doc. 11) is a knowing, intelligent and voluntary plea. The Court also 

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

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; and 

(2) Defendant be found guilty as charged in Count One of the Information. 

Anticipating the District Court’s adoption of this Report and Recommendation, the 

Magistrate Judge referred Defendant for a pre-sentence investigation, and remanded him to the 

custody of the United States Marshal. 

 

Date: April 17, 2018 s/Michael J. Newman 

 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. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is 

extended to SEVENTEEN days because this Report and Recommendation is being served by 

one of the methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), and may be 

extended further by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections 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 is made clear above, this period is likewise extended to 

SEVENTEEN days if service of the objections is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), 

(D), (E), or (F). 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).