Opinion
No. 6:20-CR-26-REW-HAI
04-06-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL DAVID HOLT, Defendant.
ORDER
*** *** *** ***
After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 76 (Minute Entry), Judge Ingram recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Holt's guilty plea and adjudge him guilty of Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment (DE 34). See DE 77 (Recommendation); see also DE 75-1 (Plea Agreement). Judge Ingram expressly informed Defendant of his right to object to the recommendation and to secure de novo review from the undersigned. See DE 77 at 3. The established, 3-day objection deadline has passed, and no party has objected.
The Court is not required to "review . . . a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings." Thomas v. Arn, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472 (1985); see also United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981) (holding that a failure to file objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation waives the right to appellate review); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2)-(3) (limiting de novo review duty to "any objection" filed); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (limiting de novo review duty to "those portions" of the recommendation "to which objection is made").
The Court thus, with no objection from any party and on full review of the record, ORDERS as follows:
1. The Court ADOPTS DE 77, ACCEPTS Holt's guilty plea, and ADJUDGES him guilty of Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment (DE 34);
2. Further, per Judge Ingram's unopposed recommendation and Defendant's agreement (DE 75-1 ¶ 10), the Court provisionally FINDS that the currency identified and attributed to Holt in the operative indictment (DE 34 at 4) is forfeitable and that Holt has an interest in said property, and the Court preliminarily ADJUDGES Defendant's interest in such property FORFEITED. Under Criminal Rule 32.2, and absent pre-judgment objection, "the preliminary forfeiture order becomes final as to" Defendant at sentencing. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4)(A). The Court will further address forfeiture at that time. See id. at (b)(4)(B);
3. The Court, as to this Defendant only, GENERALLY CONTINUES the jury trial in this matter; and
4. The Court will issue a separate sentencing order.
At the hearing, Judge Ingram remanded Holt to custody, which was his pre-plea status. See DE 76 at 2. The Court, thus, sees no need to further address detention, at this time.
This the 6th day of April, 2021.
Signed By:
Robert E . Wier
United States District Judge