Report and Recommendation — No. 2:24-cr-00029 (Dkt. 54, S.D. Ohio)

Summary

A Report and Recommendation, Doc #54, filed September 4, 2024 in United States v. Latisha C. Holloway, Criminal Action 2:24-cr-029(2), before Judge Michael H. Watson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. It recounts that the Indictment charges wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Count 2) and money laundering in an amount greater than $10,000 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Count 4), and that a Plea Agreement, ECF No. 49, was entered under Rule 11(c)(1)(A). The magistrate judge describes the September 4, 2024 change of plea proceeding and concludes the plea to Counts 2 and 4 was knowing and voluntary with a factual basis. He recommends that the guilty plea be accepted, with the Plea Agreement left to the District Judge after a presentence report. Objections are due within fourteen (14) days.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

  Case: 2:24-cr-00029-MHW Doc #: 54 Filed: 09/04/24 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 222



                   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
                             EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

     vs.                                   Criminal Action 2:24-cr-029(2)
                                           JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON
LATISHA C. HOLLOWAY


                         REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

     Defendant Latisha C. Holloway previously pleaded not guilty to an
Indictment charging her with wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1343 (Count 2) and money laundering in an amount greater than $10,000
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Count 4). Indictment, ECF No. 19.
The Indictment also includes a forfeiture provision against defendant.
Id. The United States and defendant thereafter entered into a Plea
Agreement, ECF No. 49, executed pursuant to the provisions of Rule
11(c)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, whereby
defendant agreed to enter a plea of guilty to those counts. 1         On
September 4, 2024, defendant personally appeared with her counsel for
a change of plea proceeding.
     Defendant consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(3), to enter a
guilty plea before a Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 52. See United States
v. Cukaj, 25 Fed.Appx. 290, 291(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 she entered her guilty plea, defendant was in full possession of


      1 The Plea Agreement, the material terms of which the Court expressly
reviewed with defendant, includes the forfeiture provision in the Indictment,
as well as a restitution obligation. The Plea Agreement also includes an
appellate waiver provision that preserves only certain claims for appeal,
                                       1
     Case: 2:24-cr-00029-MHW Doc #: 54 Filed: 09/04/24 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 223



her faculties, was not suffering from any apparent physical or mental
illness and was not under the influence of narcotics, other drugs, or
alcohol.
        Prior to accepting defendant’s plea, the undersigned addressed
defendant personally and in open court and determined her competence
to plead.     Based on the observations of the undersigned, defendant
understands the nature and meaning of the charges against her in the
Indictment and the consequences of her plea of guilty to Counts 2 and
4.    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 her, her attorney and the attorney
for the United States and filed on August 12, 2024, represents the
only promises made by anyone regarding the charges against her in the
Indictment.      Defendant was advised that the District Judge may accept
or reject the Plea Agreement and that all sentencing terms will be
determined by the District Judge. Defendant was further advised that,
even if the District Judge refuses to accept any provision of the Plea
Agreement not binding on the Court, or if the sentence imposed is more
severe than the sentence that defendant expected, defendant may
nevertheless not withdraw her guilty plea on that basis.
        Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts
supporting the charges, which is attached to the Plea Agreement.              She
confirmed that she is pleading guilty to Counts 2 and 4 of the
Indictment because she is in fact guilty of those crimes.             The Court
concludes that there is a factual basis for the plea.
        The Court concludes that defendant’s plea of guilty to Counts 2
and 4 of the Indictment is knowingly and voluntarily made with
understanding of the nature and meaning of the charges and of the
consequences of the plea.

collateral challenge, and motion for reduction of sentence.
                                          2
  Case: 2:24-cr-00029-MHW Doc #: 54 Filed: 09/04/24 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 224



     It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant’s guilty plea to
Counts 2 and 4 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 report.
     In accordance with S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 32.1, and as expressly
agreed to by defendant through counsel, a written presentence
investigation report will be prepared by the United States Probation
Office.    Defendant will be asked to provide information; defendant’s
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 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 of the right to appeal the
decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.
See United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878 (6th Cir. 2019);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).




September 4, 2024                               s/ Norah McCann King
 Date                                            Norah McCann King
                                           United States Magistrate Judge




                                       3


File and source

File

54.pdf

Size

136,065 bytes

SHA-256

1dd6f817c6d4cfc76e18f6021310c562b88fdc46f43200eb1649ab3f474bdb8f

Our copy

54.pdf

Original

archive.org