IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

Case Number: 3:17-cr-197(2)

Plaintiff,

- vs -

District Judge Walter Herbert Rice

HOUDA EZAMANE-HAMADI, Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

Defendant. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This case came on for hearing on April 13, 2018. The Unites States was represented by 

Assistant United States Attorney Andrew Hunt and Defendant was represented by Attorney 

Christopher Deal. Pursuant to General Order DAY 13-01, Judge Rice requested the Magistrate 

Judge to preside and Defendant orally consented. 

The undersigned examined Defendant under oath as to her understanding of the Plea 

Agreement and the effect of entering a guilty plea pursuant to that Agreement. Having conducted 

the colloquy, the Magistrate Judge is persuaded the Defendant understands the rights waived by 

entering a guilty plea and is competent to do so. The Magistrate Judge also concludes that 

execution of the Plea Agreement, which was acknowledged in open court, is Defendant=s 

voluntary, knowing, and intelligent act. It is therefore respectfully recommended that the Plea 

Agreement be accepted.

Defendant having executed the Plea Agreement, she tendered a plea of guilty to the offense

Case: 3:17-cr-00197-WHR Doc #: 45 Filed: 04/13/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 148
charged in the Information. The Magistrate Judge concludes the guilty plea is knowing, intelligent, 

and voluntary and that the Statement of Facts made a part of the Plea Agreement, whose truth 

Defendant acknowledged, provides a sufficient factual basis for a finding of guilt. It is therefore 

respectfully recommended that the guilty plea be accepted and Defendant be found guilty as 

charged in the Information.

Anticipating the District Court=s adoption of this Report and Recommendations, the 

Magistrate Judge referred the Defendant for a pre-sentence investigation, continued Defendant on 

bond, and set sentencing before District Judge Walter H. Rice on July 10, 2018, at 1:30 A.M. in 

Courtroom No. 1.

April 13, 2018.

 s/ Michael R. Merz

 United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2), 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 Recommendations. Such objections shall specify the portions of the Report objected to 

and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections. If the Report and 

Recommendations are 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. Failure to make objections in accordance 

with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th 

Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Case: 3:17-cr-00197-WHR Doc #: 45 Filed: 04/13/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 149