United States v. Marin-Saldana, 2:19-cr-00246

Defendant Pedro Marin-Saldana entered a Rule 11(c)(1)(A) plea agreement and agreed to plead guilty to an Information charging possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a cocaine mixture (21 U.S.C. § 841).
Arraignment and guilty-plea colloquy occurred on December 16, 2019, with a Spanish interpreter; defendant waived indictment and consented to the Magistrate Judge taking the plea under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).
The Magistrate Judge personally questioned defendant, found him competent, not impaired, and satisfied that he understood the charge, rights, and consequences of pleading guilty.
Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the written statement of facts attached to the plea agreement and admitted guilt; the Court found a factual basis for the plea.
The plea was recommended for acceptance; final decision on the plea agreement was deferred to the District Judge pending a presentence investigation report (PSR).
The plea agreement acknowledged likely immigration consequences, included a forfeiture provision and an appellate-waiver; parties were instructed on PSR procedures, 14-day objection timelines, and waiver consequences for failure to object.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voluntariness of plea	Colloquy shows plea was knowing and voluntary	No dispute; defendant affirmed voluntariness	Plea knowingly and voluntarily made and recommended for acceptance
Factual basis for plea	Attached statement of facts supports charge	Defendant admitted the facts supporting charge	Court concluded there is a factual basis for the plea
Magistrate authority to accept plea	With defendant's consent, Magistrate may accept plea and issue R&R	Defendant consented to Magistrate proceeding	Magistrate accepted plea colloquy and recommended acceptance to District Judge
PSR, objections, and waiver consequences	PSR to be prepared; objections due in 14 days; failure to object waives de novo review and appeal	Defendant agreed to PSR process and appellate-waiver terms	PSR ordered; parties given objection timeline; failure to object will waive de novo review and appellate rights

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report waives de novo review by the district court)
Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to timely object to a magistrate’s recommendation results in waiver of appellate review)
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (party’s failure to object to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations waives the right to challenge them on appeal)