From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Folgman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON
Jul 13, 2020
No. 6:20-CR-2-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky. Jul. 13, 2020)

Opinion

No. 6:20-CR-2-REW-HAI

07-13-2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JENNIFER FOLGMAN, Defendant.


ORDER

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

This matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition (DE 258) of United States Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram, addressing Defendant Jennifer Folgman's guilty plea as to Count One of the Superseding Indictment (DE 207). DE 257 (Minutes). Defendant appeared before Judge Ingram on July 6, 2020. Id. After consenting to plead before a United States Magistrate Judge (DE 256) and engaging in the full colloquy required by Rule 11, Folgman proceeded to plead guilty. DE 258. Judge Ingram found Defendant competent to plead and that she did so in a knowing and voluntary fashion; he further found that an adequate factual basis supported the plea as to each essential element of the charged offense. Id. Accordingly, Judge Ingram recommended that the Court accept Defendant's plea and adjudge her guilty of the offense charged in Count One of the Superseding Indictment, as well as the forfeiture allegation of the Indictment. Id.

Defendant had three days within which to object to Judge Ingram's recommendation, and she has not done so. Nor has the United States objected. While this Court reviews de novo those portions of a Recommended Disposition to which a party objects, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), it is not required to "review . . . a magistrate[] [judge'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). When the parties do not object to the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition, they waive any right to review. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b); United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017) ("When a party . . . fails to lodge a specific objection to a particular aspect of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, we consider that issue forfeited on appeal."); see also United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 582, 587 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting that "[t]he law in this Circuit is clear" that a party who fails to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation forfeits his right to appeal its adoption).

The Court thus ADOPTS the Recommended Disposition (DE 258), accepts the plea, and ADJUDGES Jennifer Folgman guilty of the offense charged in Count One of the Superseding Indictment. The Court further preliminarily ADJUDGES forfeitable the DE-207 identified property, per Judge Ingram's recommendation and Defendant's concession of forfeitability at the rearraignment. The Court further CANCELS the jury trial (currently set for August 17, 2020) as to Folgman. An Order scheduling sentencing follows. Defendant remains detained per prior Orders.

This the 13th day of July, 2020.

Signed By:

Robert E . Wier

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Folgman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON
Jul 13, 2020
No. 6:20-CR-2-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky. Jul. 13, 2020)
Case details for

United States v. Folgman

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JENNIFER FOLGMAN, Defendant.

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

Date published: Jul 13, 2020

Citations

No. 6:20-CR-2-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky. Jul. 13, 2020)