From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Quillen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE
Mar 4, 2020
No. 7:19-CR-16-REW-EBA (E.D. Ky. Mar. 4, 2020)

Opinion

No. 7:19-CR-16-REW-EBA

03-04-2020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN QUILLEN, Defendant.


ORDER

*** *** *** ***

This matter is before the Court on the Recommended Disposition (DE 113) of United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins, addressing Defendant Kevin Quillen's guilty plea as to Count One of the Indictment (DE 1). DE 110 (Minutes). Defendant appeared before Judge Atkins on February 28, 2020. Id. After consenting to plead before a United States Magistrate Judge (DE 111) and engaging in the full colloquy required by Rule 11, he proceeded to plead guilty. DE 113. Judge Atkins found Defendant competent to plead and that Defendant did so in a knowing and voluntary fashion; he further found that an adequate factual basis supported the plea as to each essential element of the charged offense. Id. Accordingly, Judge Atkins recommended that the Court accept Defendant's plea and adjudge him guilty of the offense charged in Count One of the Indictment. Id.

Defendant had three days within which to object to Judge Atkins's recommendation, and he has not done so. Nor has the United States objected. While this Court reviews de novo those portions of a Recommended Disposition to which a party objects, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), it 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). Where the parties do not object to the Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition, they waive any right to review. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b); United States v. White, 874 F.3d 490, 495 (6th Cir. 2017) ("When a party . . . fails to lodge a specific objection to a particular aspect of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, we consider that issue forfeited on appeal."); see also United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 582, 587 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting that "[t]he law in this Circuit is clear" that a party who fails to object to a magistrate judge's recommendation forfeits his right to appeal its adoption).

The Court thus ADOPTS the Recommended Disposition (DE 113), accepts the plea, and ADJUDGES Kevin Quillen guilty of Count One of the Indictment. The Court further CANCELS the jury trial as to this Defendant. An Order scheduling sentencing follows. Defendant remains detained per prior Orders.

This the 4th day of March, 2020.

Signed By:

Robert E . Wier

United States District Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Quillen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE
Mar 4, 2020
No. 7:19-CR-16-REW-EBA (E.D. Ky. Mar. 4, 2020)
Case details for

United States v. Quillen

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. KEVIN QUILLEN, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION PIKEVILLE

Date published: Mar 4, 2020

Citations

No. 7:19-CR-16-REW-EBA (E.D. Ky. Mar. 4, 2020)