From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Miles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE
Apr 20, 2021
No. 7:20-CR-14-REW-EBA (E.D. Ky. Apr. 20, 2021)

Opinion

No. 7:20-CR-14-REW-EBA

04-20-2021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROGER LEE MILES, Defendant.


ORDER

*** *** *** ***

After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 25 (Minute Entry), Judge Atkins recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Miles's guilty plea and adjudge him guilty of Count One of the Indictment (DE 1). See DE 28 (Recommendation). Judge Atkins expressly informed Defendant of his right to object to the recommendation and to secure de novo review from the undersigned. See id. 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. 66, 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's 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 28, ACCEPTS Miles's guilty plea, and ADJUDGES him guilty of Count One of the Indictment;

2. Further, per Judge Atkins's unopposed recommendation and Defendant's agreement (DE 27, ¶ 9), the Court provisionally FINDS that Miles has an interest in the currency identified in the operative indictment (DE 1 at 2), and 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 Atkins remanded Miles to custody, which was his pre-plea status. See DE 25 at 1. The Court, thus, sees no need to further address detention, at this time.

This the 20th day of April, 2021.

Signed By:

Robert E . Wier

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Miles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE
Apr 20, 2021
No. 7:20-CR-14-REW-EBA (E.D. Ky. Apr. 20, 2021)
Case details for

United States v. Miles

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROGER LEE MILES, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE

Date published: Apr 20, 2021

Citations

No. 7:20-CR-14-REW-EBA (E.D. Ky. Apr. 20, 2021)