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-084(14) 

 JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON 

MOHAMED H. HASHI 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant Mohamed H. Hashi previously pleaded not guilty to an 

Indictment charging him with conspiracy to distribute codeinepromethazine, a Schedule V controlled substance, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 846 (Count 1), and two counts of obtaining controlled 

substances by fraud in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(3), 18 U.S.C. § 

2 (Counts 5 and 6). Indictment, ECF No. 3. The United States 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 

Counts 1 and 51 of the Indictment.2 On October 16, 2019, 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). 

 1 The Plea Agreement, ECF No. 260, refers at one point to “Count 1 and 

Count 14 of the Indictment....” Id. at PageID# 677. The Plea Agreement also 

refers to “Count 5,” id. at PageID# 678, and the parties agreed at the change 

of plea proceeding that this is merely a typographical error and that it is 

intended that defendant will plead guilty to Counts 1 and 5 of the 

Indictment. 2 The Plea Agreement includes an appellate waiver provision that 

preserves only certain claims for appeal. At the change of plea proceeding, 

the Court advised defendant, who is a naturalized citizen, of possible 

immigration consequences to his guilty plea. However, the parties agreed 

that negative immigration consequences are in fact unlikely. 
 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, drugs, 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 against him in the 

Indictment and the consequences of his plea of guilty to Counts 1 and 

5 of the Indictment. 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 September 26, 2019, represents the 

only promises made by anyone regarding the charges against him 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 charges, which is attached to the Plea Agreement.3 He 

confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Counts 1 and 5 of the 

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

concludes that there is a factual basis for the plea. 

 3Count 5 of the Indictment refers to the date of April 4, 2016. 

Indictment, PageID# 6. However, the statement of facts attached to the Plea 

Agreement refers to the specific date of “January 4, 2016.” Plea Agreement, at PageID# 682. The parties agreed at the change of plea proceeding that this 

reference in the statement of facts is also a typographical error and that 

the offense charged in Count 5 occurred on April 4, 2016, as charged in the 

Indictment. 
3 

 The Court concludes that defendant’s plea of guilty to Counts 1 

and 5 of the Indictment is knowingly and voluntarily made with 

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

consequences of the plea. 

 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant’s guilty plea to 

Counts 1 and 5 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). 

October 16, 2019 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge