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-074 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM 

WILLIAM D. MERCKLE 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant William D. Merckle pleaded not guilty to an Indictment

charging him with three (3) counts of drug offenses in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 841 (Counts 1 - 3), and eight (8) counts of transporting, 

possessing, selling, or transferring distilled spirits in an improper 

container in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5301(d), 5604(a)(1) (Counts 4 – 

11). Indictment, ECF No. 9. The Indictment also contains a forfeiture 

count. The United States and defendant thereafter entered into a plea 

agreement1 whereby defendant agreed to enter a plea of guilty to Counts 

3 and 10 of the Indictment. On September 6, 2018, defendant, 

accompanied by his counsel, 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). 

 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 

 1 The Plea Agreement, ECF No. 23, invokes Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the 

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. However, in light of the agreed sentence 

contained in the Plea Agreement, the parties agree that the Plea Agreement is 

governed by the provisions of Rule 11(c(1)(C). The parties also specifically 

agree that Paragraph 10 of the Plea Agreement should be corrected to read, “Acceptance of Plea Agreement: The Defendant understands that the Court is 

bound by the sentencing recommendations and stipulations of the parties.” See

Plea Agreement, ECF No. 23, PageID# 57. Under the Plea Agreement, defendant 

also agrees not to contest the forfeiture count contained in the Indictment. 
time he entered his guilty pleas, 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 pleas, 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 pleas of guilty to Counts 3 and 10. 

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 pleas are voluntary. Defendant 

acknowledged that the plea agreement signed by him, his attorney and 

the attorney for the United States and filed on July 13, 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. Defendant was further advised 

that, if the Court refuses to accept the plea agreement, defendant 

will have the opportunity to withdraw his guilty pleas but that, if he 

does not withdraw his guilty pleas, the District Judge may impose a 

sentence that is more severe than the sentence contemplated in the 

plea agreement, up to the statutory maximums. 

 Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts 

supporting the charges, which is attached to the plea agreement.2 He 

confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Counts 3 and 10 of the 

Indictment because he is in fact guilty of those offenses. The Court 

concludes that there is a factual basis for the pleas. 

 The Court concludes that defendant’s pleas of guilty to Counts 3 

and 10 of the Indictment are knowingly and voluntarily made with 

 2 The written statement of facts attached to the Plea Agreement does not 

address the issue of venue. However, defendant expressly conceded at the 

change of plea proceeding that the offenses charged in Counts 3 and 10 took 

place in Perry County, Ohio, which is in the Southern District of Ohio. 
3 

understanding of the nature and meaning of the charges and of the 

consequences of the pleas. 

 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant’s guilty pleas to 

Counts 3 and 10 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 6, 2018 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge