IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Criminal Action 2:18-cr-111(1) 

 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM

JAMES A. IMES

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The United States of America and defendant James A. Imes entered

into an Amended 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 an Information charging

him with one count of operating a chop shop in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2322 (Count 1), one count of trafficking in motor vehicle parts with

altered or removed identification numbers in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

2321 (Count 2), one count of altering or removing vehicle

identification numbers in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 511 (Count 3), and

one count of venting HCFCs into the environment in violation of 42

U.S.C. § 7413(c)(1)(Count 4).1

 On June 14, 2018, defendant,

accompanied by his counsel, appeared for an initial appearance, an

arraignment, and a guilty 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). Defendant also waived his right to an

1 The Amended Plea Agreement, ECF No. 3, was substituted for the

original plea agreement at the June 14, 2018, arraignment. Under the Amended

Plea Agreement, defendant agreed that the Government could seek a forfeiture

money judgment. Defendant also agreed to an order of restitution in an amount

to be determined by the Court. 

1

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/14/18 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 37
indictment in open court and after being advised of the nature of the

charge and of his rights. See Fed. R. Crim P. 7(b). 

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 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 in the Information

and the consequences of his plea to those charges. 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 Amended Plea Agreement signed by him, his attorney and the

attorney for the United States and filed on June 14, 2018, represents

the only promises made by anyone regarding the charges in the

Information. 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 facts supporting the

charges. He confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Counts 1 through

4 of the Information because he is in fact guilty of those offenses. 

The Court concludes that there is a factual basis for the plea. 

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

through 4 of the Information 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 through 4 of the Information be accepted. Decision on

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/14/18 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 38
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).

June 14, 2018 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

3

Case: 2:18-cr-00111-JLG Doc #: 17 Filed: 06/14/18 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 39