Opinion
6:23-CR-26-REW-HAI
09-21-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. COBY CONN, Defendant.
ORDER
ROBERT E. WIER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 25 (Minute Entry), Judge Ingram recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Coby Conn's guilty plea and adjudge him guilty of Counts One and Two of the Indictment (DE 1). See DE 26 (Recommendation); see also DE 23 (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 26 at 3. The established three-day objection deadline has passed, and no party has objected.
The Court 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); see also Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 176 (6th Cir. 1996)) (alterations adopted) (noting that the Sixth Circuit has “long held that, when a defendant does ‘not raise an argument in his objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation he has forfeited his right to raise this issue on appeal'”); United States v. Olano, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993) (distinguishing waiver and forfeiture); 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 26, ACCEPTS Defendant's guilty plea, and ADJUDGES Defendant guilty of Counts One and Two of the Indictment;
2. Further, per Judge Ingram's recommendation, the Defendant's plea agreement (DE 23 ¶ 8), and an audit of the rearraignment hearing, the Court provisionally FINDS that the property identified in the Indictment's Forfeiture Allegations, DE 1 at 2-3 (the seized currency, firearms, and ammunition), is forfeitable. Defendant 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, and reflect any administrative forfeiture that is concluded, at that time. See id. at (b)(4)(B); and
3. The Court will issue a separate sentencing order.
Judge Ingram remanded Conn to custody post-plea, which preserved his status following arraignment. See DE 13; DE 25. As such, Brock will remain in custody pending sentencing, subject to intervening orders.