IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
NICHOLAS LEE BUSH,
Case No. 2:13-cr-140
Judge Peter C. Economus
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The United States of America and Defendant Nicholas Lee Bush entered into a plea
agreement whereby Defendant agreed to enter a plea of guilty to an Indictment charging him with
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a).
On July 10, 2013, Defendant, accompanied by his counsel, appeared for a hearing to withdraw
his previously entered plea of not guilty and to change his plea to guilty. Defendant consented,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), to enter a guilty plea before a Magistrate Judge. See United
States v. 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).
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 narcotics or alcohol.
Prior to accepting Defendant’s plea, the undersigned addressed him 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 charge returned in the Indictment and the
consequences of his plea. 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 plea agreement signed by him, his attorney
and the attorney for the United States and filed on July 2, 2013, represents the only promises made
to him by anyone regarding the charge in the Indictment. Defendant was advised that the District
Judge may accept or reject the plea agreement and that, even if the Court refuses to accept any
provision of the plea agreement not binding on the Court, Defendant may nevertheless not
withdraw his guilty plea.
Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the material aspects of the statement of facts as read
by the Assistant United States Attorney supporting the charge. He confirmed that he is pleading
guilty to Count One of the Indictment because he is in fact guilty of the offense charged in the
Indictment. The Court concludes that there is a factual basis for the plea.
The Court concludes that Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count One of the Indictment is
knowingly and voluntarily made with the understanding of the nature and meaning of the charge
and of the consequences of his plea.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Defendant Nicholas Lee Bush’s guilty plea to Count
One of the Indictment 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
In accordance with S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 32.1, a written presentence investigation report
will be prepared by the United States Probation Office. Defendant will be asked to provide
information and his 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 the 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
waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex
Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the magistrate
judge’s recommendations constituted a waiver of [the defendant’s] ability to appeal the district
court’s ruling”); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that
defendant waived appeal of district court’s denial of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to
magistrate judge's report and recommendation). Even when timely objections are filed, appellate
review of issues not raised in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994
(6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection to a magistrate judge’s report, which fails to specify the
issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an issue for appeal . . . .”) (citation omitted)).
DATE: July 10, 2013
s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE