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-155 

 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM 

MICAH J. HARRIS 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant Micah J. Harris previously pleaded not guilty to an 

Indictment, ECF No. 10. The United States and defendant thereafter 

entered into a plea agreement, executed pursuant to the provisions of 

Rule 11(c)(1)(C),1 whereby defendant agreed to plead guilty to a 

Superseding Information that charges him with possession with intent 

to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of 

heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (Count 1), carrying a firearm 

in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

924(c)(1)(A)(i) (Count 2), and being a felon in possession of a 

firearm while on court-ordered release in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 

922(g)(1), 3147 (Count 3). Superseding Information, ECF No. 50. The 

Superseding Information also contains a forfeiture provision. Id. On 

October 16, 2019, defendant, accompanied by his counsel, appeared for 

an arraignment and entry of 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 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). 

 1 The current Plea Agreement, ECF No. 51, includes an appellate waiver 

provision that preserves only certain claims for appeal or collateral 

challenge. Under the Plea Agreement, defendant also agrees not to contest the 

forfeiture provision contained in the Superseding Information. 
 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, drugs, or 

alcohol. 

 Prior to accepting defendant’s plea, the undersigned addressed 

defendant personally and in open court and determined his competence 

to plead.2 Based on the observations of the undersigned, defendant 

understands the nature and meaning of the charges in the Superseding 

Information and the consequences of his plea of guilty 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 plea agreement signed by him, his attorney and the attorney 

for the United States and filed on October 4, 2019, represents the 

only promises made by anyone regarding the charges in the Superseding 

Information. Defendant was advised that the District Judge may accept 

or reject the plea agreement. Defendant was further advised that, if 

the Court refuses to accept the plea agreement, defendant will have 

the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea but that, if he does not 

withdraw his guilty plea under those circumstances, the District Judge 

may impose a sentence that is more severe than the sentence 

contemplated in the plea agreement, up to the statutory maximum. 

 Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts 

supporting the charges, which is attached to the plea agreement. He 

confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Counts 1 - 3 of the 

 2 A competency evaluation and competency hearing were held in this case. 

See Motion to Determine Competency, ECF No. 43; Sealed Order, ECF No. 44; 

Minute Entry, ECF No. 47. On September 6, 2019, defendant was determined by 

the District Judge to be competent. Order, ECF No. 48. 
3 

Superseding 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 - 

3 of the Superseding 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, 2, and 3 of the Superseding Information 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). 

October 16, 2019 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge