From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Powell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON
Aug 25, 2020
No. 6:20-CR-2-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky. Aug. 25, 2020)

Opinion

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

08-25-2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KRYSTEN POWELL, Defendant.


ORDER

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

After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 343 (Minute Entry), Judge Ingram recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Powell's guilty plea and adjudge her guilty of Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment (DE 207). See DE 344 (Recommendation); see also DE 335-1 (Plea Agreement). Judge Ingram expressly informed Defendant of her right to object to the recommendation and to secure de novo review from the undersigned. See DE 344 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 344, ACCEPTS Powell's guilty plea, and ADJUDGES her guilty of Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment (DE 207);

2. Further, per Judge Ingram's unopposed recommendation and Defendant's agreement (DE 335-1 ¶ 9), the Court provisionally FINDS that the property identified in the operative indictment (DE 207 at 8-9) is forfeitable and that Powell has an interest in said property, 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 Ingram remanded Powell to custody. See DE 343. The Court, thus, sees no need to further address detention, at this time. --------

This the 25th day of August, 2020.

Signed By:

Robert E . Wier

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Powell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION LONDON
Aug 25, 2020
No. 6:20-CR-2-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky. Aug. 25, 2020)
Case details for

United States v. Powell

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KRYSTEN POWELL, Defendant.

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

Date published: Aug 25, 2020

Citations

No. 6:20-CR-2-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky. Aug. 25, 2020)