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-058(6) 

 JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

KING HAMIDU 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant King Hamidu previously pleaded not guilty to an 

Indictment charging him with conspiracy to commit money laundering in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 1) and seven (7) counts of 

concealment of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) 

(Counts 6, 18, 30-33, and 38)). The Indictment also includes a 

forfeiture count. Indictment, ECF No. 23. The United States of America 

and defendant thereafter entered into a plea agreement, executed 

pursuant to the provisions of Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of 

Criminal Procedure, whereby defendant agreed to enter a plea of guilty 

to the conspiracy charge in Count 1 of the Indictment.1 On March 13, 

2019, defendant, accompanied by his counsel, appeared for a change of 

plea proceeding.2 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 

 1 Under the Plea Agreement, ECF No. 86, defendant agreed to forfeit 

$185,841.96, which represents the amount that he personally obtained in 

connection with Count 1, and to a restitution obligation – a portion of which 

would be joint and several with his co-defendants – in the amount of 

$5,035,600.60. The Plea Agreement also includes an appellate waiver provision 

which preserves only certain claims for appeal. 

2 Defendant is a citizen of Ghana. Although the immigration consequences 

of his guilty plea are not addressed in the Plea Agreement, the Court advised 

defendant of those consequences, and gave him the opportunity to confer with 

his counsel and to defer the proceeding in order to consider those 

consequences. Defendant indicated that he understood the possible immigration 

consequences of his guilty plea and yet elected to proceed with the change of 

plea proceeding. 
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 

his faculties, was not suffering from any apparent physical or mental 

illness and was not under the influence of 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 Count 1 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 December 14, 2018, 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 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 the conspiracy offense charged in that 

count. 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 
3 

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. 

 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). 

March 13, 2019 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge