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-083(1) 

 JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

SALOME AGUIAR ALARCON 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant Salome Aguiar Alarcon previously pleaded not guilty to 

an Indictment charging him with one (1) count of conspiracy to 

distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1), and one (1) count of possession with intent to 

distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 841 (Count 2). Indictment, ECF No. 12. The United States of 

America and defendant thereafter 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 1.1 On September 12, 2018, defendant, accompanied 

by his counsel and with the assistance of a Spanish interpreter,2

appeared for a change of plea proceeding. 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). 

 1 The Plea Agreement, ECF No. 25, erroneously refers at one point to 100 

grams of methamphetamine. At the change of plea proceeding, the parties 

agreed that this reference is a typographical error and that defendant 

intends to plead guilty to Count 1 as charged, i.e., conspiracy to distribute 

500 grams or more of methamphetamine. 2 Upon express inquiry, neither party objected to the use of the Spanish 

interpreter.
 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 

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 charges in the Indictment

and the consequences of his plea of guilty to Count 1. 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 June 28, 2018, 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 his guilty plea. 

 Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts 

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

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

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 Indictment is knowingly and voluntarily made with understanding of 

the nature and meaning of the charge and of the consequences of the 

plea. 
3 

 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). 

September 12, 2018 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge