From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Pratt

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Jul 31, 2023
No. 22-20187 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 31, 2023)

Opinion

22-20187

07-31-2023

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ALLAN PRATT, Defendant.


DISTRICT JUDGE THOMAS L. LUDINGTON

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

PATRICIA T. MORRIS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

I. REPORT AND FINDINGS

This case was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and 636(b)(3) for purposes of receiving, on consent of the parties, Defendant's offer of a plea of guilty. Defendant and his counsel appeared before me on July 31, 2023, and plead guilty to count 1 of the superseding information. In open court, I examined Defendant under oath, confirmed Defendant's consent, and then advised and questioned Defendant regarding each of the inquiries prescribed by Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Based upon Defendant's answers and demeanor, I HEREBY FIND: (1) that Defendant is competent to enter a plea; (2) that Defendant's plea is entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, without coercion; and (3) that the offense(s) to which Defendant pleaded guilty is(are) supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense. Therefore, I have ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.

II. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that, subject to the Court's consideration of the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Defendant's plea be accepted, Defendant be adjudged guilty and the Court impose sentence.

III. REVIEW

Pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985); Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The parties are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the objections a party may have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge.


Summaries of

United States v. Pratt

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division
Jul 31, 2023
No. 22-20187 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 31, 2023)
Case details for

United States v. Pratt

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL ALLAN PRATT, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division

Date published: Jul 31, 2023

Citations

No. 22-20187 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 31, 2023)

Citing Cases

Thompson-Pratt v. United States

On July 31, 2023, in related criminal proceedings, Michael Pratt pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess…