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-147 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM 

BITAL EL-YOUSSEPH 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Defendant Bital El-Yousseph is charged in a Superseding 

Information with one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess 

with intent to distribute controlled substances (Count 1), and one 

count of brandishing or using a firearm in connection with the drug 

trafficking activity charged in Count 1 (Count 2). Superseding 

Information, ECF No. 24. The Superseding Information also contains a 

forfeiture count by which the United States seeks to forfeit any 

interest that defendant may have in three firearms, ammunition and 

magazines. Id. 

Defendant previously pleaded guilty to those charges pursuant to 

a plea agreement, see Order, ECF No. 31, but was permitted to withdraw 

his guilty plea in light of the First Step Act of 2018. Order, ECF No. 

34. The United States and defendant thereafter entered into a new plea 

agreement, whereby defendant again agreed to enter a plea of guilty to 

both counts, but which gives defendant the benefit of the First Step 

Act changes. Plea Agreement, ECF No. 36.1 On June 12, 2019, defendant, 

accompanied by his counsel, appeared for another 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. 

 1 The Plea Agreement, ECF No. 36, was executed pursuant to the 

provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) and includes an appellate waiver 

provision that preserves only certain claims for appeal. Under the Plea 

Agreement, defendant also agrees to forfeit his interest in the firearms, 

ammunition and magazines referred to in the Superseding Information, and his 

interest in a specified cell phone. Defendant also agrees to an order of 

restitution. 
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 charges 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 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 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 new plea agreement signed by him, his attorney and the 

attorney for the United States and filed on May 8, 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, the District Judge may 

impose a sentence that is more severe than the sentence contemplated 

in the plea agreement, up to the statutory maximums. 
3 

 Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts 

supporting the charge, which is attached to the new plea agreement. 

He confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of the 

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 

and 2 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 and 2 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). 

June 12, 2019 s/ Norah McCann King 

 Date Norah McCann King 

 United States Magistrate Judge