IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Case No. 3:18-CR-087 

 Plaintiff, 

 District Judge Thomas M. Rose 

 v. Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman 

 

URIEL BETANCOURT, 

 

 Defendant. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1

 This case came before the Court for plea proceedings on October 1, 2019 following referral 

to the undersigned pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 59. Assistant United States Attorney Amy Smith 

appeared on behalf of the Government. Retained counsel, Jose Carlos Rojo, appeared and 

represented Defendant. Defendant, through counsel, orally consented to proceed before the United 

States Magistrate Judge for the plea hearing. James Weller, a Spanish language interpreter, was 

also present in Court and interpreted the proceedings for Defendant. Defendant acknowledged 

that he understood the Spanish language interpreter and expressed no concerns over the translation 

of the proceedings. 

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

Agreement, which Defendant acknowledged in open court. The undersigned also examined 

Defendant under oath concerning the effect of entering a plea pursuant to that agreement. Having 

 1

 Attached hereto is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation. 

Case: 3:18-cr-00087-TMR Doc #: 40 Filed: 10/01/19 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 309
conducted that colloquy, the Magistrate Judge concludes that Defendant fully understands the 

rights waived by entering a guilty plea, and is fully competent to enter a guilty plea. 

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge concludes that Defendant’s guilty plea to 

Count 1 of the Indictment is a knowing, intelligent and voluntary plea. The Court also concludes 

that the Statement of Facts made a part of the Plea Agreement, the truth of which Defendant 

acknowledged in open court, provides a sufficient factual basis for a finding of guilt. 

It is therefore respectfully RECOMMENDED that: (1) the Court accept Defendant’s 

guilty plea to Count 1; and (2) Defendant be found guilty as charged in Count 1 of the Indictment. 

Anticipating the District Court’s adoption of this Report and Recommendation, the 

Magistrate Judge referred Defendant for a pre-sentence investigation, and remanded him to the 

custody of the United States Marshal. The Court advised both sides of the sentencing date: January 

31, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. 

 

Date: October 1, 2019 s/Michael J. Newman 

 Michael J. Newman 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 3:18-cr-00087-TMR Doc #: 40 Filed: 10/01/19 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 310
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS 

 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), 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 Recommendation. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d), this period is extended to 

SEVENTEEN days because this Report and Recommendation is being served by one of the 

methods of service listed in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F), and may be extended further 

by the Court on timely motion for an extension. Such objections shall specify the portions of the 

Report and Recommendation objected to, and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in 

support of the objections. If the Report and Recommendation is 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. As 

is made clear above, this period is likewise extended to SEVENTEEN days if service of the 

objections is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), (D), (E), or (F). Failure to make 

objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 153-55 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981). 

 

 

Case: 3:18-cr-00087-TMR Doc #: 40 Filed: 10/01/19 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 311