Report and Recommendation, U.S. v. Lorie A. Schaefer, No. 2:24-cr-00029, Dkt. 46 (S.D. Ohio)

Summary

A Report and Recommendation in United States of America v. Lorie A. Schaefer, 2:24-cr-029(1), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, filed July 24, 2024 as Document 46. Schaefer was charged with wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Count 1) and money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (Count 3), and entered a Plea Agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(B) that includes forfeiture and a restitution obligation. At the July 24, 2024 change of plea proceeding, the magistrate judge found the plea knowing and voluntary with a factual basis. The report recommends that the guilty plea to Counts 1 and 3 be accepted, with the decision on the Plea Agreement deferred to the District Judge. It is signed s/ Norah McCann King, United States Magistrate Judge.

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 #: 46 Filed: 07/24/24 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 203



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


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

     vs.                                         2:24-cr-029(1)
                                                 JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON
LORIE A. SCHAEFER



                         REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

     Defendant Lorie A. Schaefer previously pleaded not guilty to an
indictment charging her with wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1343 (Count 1) and money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957
(Count 3). Indictment, ECF No. 19. The Indictment also includes a
forfeiture provision against this defendant. Id. The United States and
defendant thereafter entered into a Plea Agreement, ECF No. 43, 1
executed pursuant to the provisions of Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, whereby defendant agreed to enter a plea
of guilty to those two counts. On July 24, 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.       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
her faculties, was not suffering from any apparent physical or mental


      1 The Plea Agreement contains an appellate waiver that preserves only
certain claims for appeal, collateral challenge, and motion for reduction of
sentence. In the Plea Agreement, defendant also agreed to the forfeiture
provision in the Indictment and agreed to a restitution obligation.
                                       1
  Case: 2:24-cr-00029-MHW Doc #: 46 Filed: 07/24/24 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 204



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 those crimes.
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 July 17, 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.
     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 1 and 3 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 1
and 3 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.
     It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant’s guilty plea to
Counts 1 and 3 of the Indictment be accepted.        Decision on acceptance

                                       2
  Case: 2:24-cr-00029-MHW Doc #: 46 Filed: 07/24/24 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 205



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 Indictment; 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 forfeiture 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).




July 24, 2024                                   s/ Norah McCann King
 Date                                            Norah McCann King
                                           United States Magistrate Judge




                                       3


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ohsd.289735.46.0.pdf

Size

132,934 bytes

SHA-256

1d2a09d070f32be3de70ed419242ec18ad3e3cadc18818455ef6321903600f88

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ohsd.289735.46.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com