Robert E. Wier United States District Judge
ORDER
*** *** *** ***
After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 648 (Minute Entry), Judge Stinnett recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Nistor's guilty plea and adjudge him guilty of Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment. See DE 652 (Recommendation); see also DE 650 (Plea Agreement); DE 249 (Superseding Indictment) ¶¶ 7-29. Judge Stinnett expressly informed Defendant of his right to object to the recommendation and to secure de novo review from the undersigned. See DE 652 at 2-3. The established, 3-day objection deadline has passed, and no party has objected.
The Court is not required to "review . . . a magistrate'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 United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981) (holding that a failure to file objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation waives the right to appellate review); 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 652,
ACCEPTS Nistor's guilty plea, and
ADJUDGES him guilty of Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment (DE 249 ¶¶ 7-29);
2. The forfeiture allegation of the operative indictment names Defendant Nistor. See DE 249 at 85-89. Though the charging document alleges specifically forfeitable property, see id. at 88, it does not identify any property in which Nistor has a readily apparent interest. The plea agreement does not directly address forfeiture. But see DE 650 ¶ 11. And, per the recommendation, the Government represents that the forfeiture allegations "are still at issue." DE 652.
3. The Court must "as soon as practical after a . . . plea of guilty is accepted . . . determine what property is subject to forfeiture under the applicable statute." Fed. R. 32.2(b)(1). To that end, Defendant Nistor SHALL, within 10 days, file a notice advising whether he intends to seek a jury determination regarding forfeiture or is waiving any claim to jury consideration and consenting to the Court's resolution of all forfeiture issues. The Government SHALL, within 7 days of Defendant's filing, submit a status report regarding forfeiture. Defendant Nistor, within 14 days of the Government's status report, SHALL respond;
4. The Court, as to this Defendant only, GENERALLY CONTINUES the jury trial in this matter; and
5. The Court will issue a separate sentencing order.
If electing the latter, the notice must affirmatively indicate—either via (1) a waiver and consent personally signed by Defendant Nistor or via (2) an affirmative counsel representation of consultation and client consent—Nistor's agreement to Court handling and waiver of jury consideration.
At the hearing, Judge Stinnett remanded Nistor to custody. See DE 648. The Court, thus, sees no need to further address detention, at this time. --------
This the 27th day of May, 2020.
Signed By:
Robert E . Wier
United States District Judge