United States v. Smotherman, 2:17-cr-00013

Justin Kelly Smotherman entered a plea agreement to plead guilty to Count One: being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)).
On April 13, 2017, Smotherman, with counsel, consented under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) to have his guilty plea taken by a Magistrate Judge.
The Magistrate Judge conducted the Rule 11 colloquy, observed the defendant’s demeanor, and found him competent, sober, and mentally capable of entering a plea.
Smotherman acknowledged he understood the charges, rights under Rule 11, and that the written plea agreement was the only promise made to him; he confirmed the factual basis and that his plea was voluntary and because he was guilty.
The Magistrate Judge recommended acceptance of the guilty plea and deferred decision on the plea agreement to the District Judge pending a presentence investigation report.
The report advised parties of the 14-day objection period to the Report and Recommendation and warned that failure to timely object waives de novo review and appeal rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voluntariness of plea	Plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered after Rule 11 colloquy	N/A — defendant affirmed plea was voluntary and factual	Magistrate concluded plea was knowing and voluntary and recommended acceptance
Competence to plead	Defendant was competent, alert, not under influence, understood proceedings	N/A — defendant answered questions and did not contest competence	Magistrate found defendant competent when entering plea
Factual basis for plea	Statement of facts accurately supported Count One; defendant confirmed guilt	N/A — defendant confirmed accuracy and guilt	Court concluded a sufficient factual basis existed for the guilty plea
Review/appeal waiver by failure to object	Parties were warned that failing to object to the R&R within 14 days waives de novo review and appeal	N/A — warning applied; no objections noted in R&R	Magistrate advised waiver consequences; standard objection process preserved rights if timely used

Pfahler v. Nat’l Latex Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816 (6th Cir. 2007) (failure to object to magistrate judge’s recommendation waives appellate rights)
United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2005) (failure to timely object to a magistrate judge’s report waives appeal of pretrial rulings)
Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981 (6th Cir. 2007) (general, non-specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report do not preserve issues for appeal)