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-113 JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

MICHAEL J. LOPEZ 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant Michael Lopez previously pleaded not guilty to an 

Indictment charging him with possession with intent to distribute 100 

grams or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. Indictment, 

ECF No. 16. 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 that charge.1 On 

September 20, 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 

time he entered his guilty plea, defendant was in full possession of 

 1 Under the Plea Agreement, ECF No. 23, defendant agreed to an appellate 

waiver provision that preserves only certain claims for appeal. The Plea 

Agreement mis-states the maximum possible fine applicable in this case. The 

parties agreed at the change of plea proceeding that the applicable maximum 

possible fine is $5 million. 
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 charge in the Indictment and 

the consequences of his plea of guilty to that charge. 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 August 16, 2018, represents the 

only promises made by anyone regarding the charge 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. 

 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. 
3 

 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 20, 2018 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge