IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Case No. 3:18-CR-00025 

 Plaintiff, 

 District Judge Walter H. Rice 

 v. Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 

AMANDO AKIO TAKATA NAPOLES, 

 

 Defendant. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

 This case came before the Court for change of plea proceedings on August 13, 2018 

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

Attorney Brent Tabacchi appeared on behalf of the Government. Attorney Vincent Paul Popp 

appeared and represented Defendant. Defendant, through counsel, orally consented to proceed 

before the United States Magistrate Judge for the plea hearing. Marina Comacho, a Spanish 

language interpreter, was also present, but at Defendant’s request, she did not interpret the 

proceedings for Defendant. Defendant acknowledged that he understood the Spanish language 

interpreter but can also speak and understand the English language, and expressed no concerns 

over the proceedings. 

The undersigned examined Defendant under oath as to his 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 

 1

 Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation. 
conducted that colloquy, the Magistrate Judge concludes that Defendant fully understands the 

rights waived by entering a guilty plea; fully understands all possible sentencing and 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 Indictment (doc. 18) 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 1 of the Indictment. 

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: August 20, 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).