United States v. El-Yousseph
2:18-cr-00147
S.D. Ohio
Jan 23, 2019
Check Treatment
Docket

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. BILAL EL-YOUSSEPH

Criminal Action 2:18-cr-147

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

January 23, 2019

JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant Bilal El-Yousseph is charged in a Superseding Information with one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances (Count 1), and one count of brandishing or using a firearm in connection with the drug trafficking activity charged in Count 1 (Count 2). The Superseding Information also contains a forfeiture count by which the United States seeks to forfeit any interest that defendant may have in three firearms, ammunition and magazines, and a cell phone. Superseding Information, ECF No. 24. The United States and defendant entered into a plea agreement,1 executed pursuant to the provisions of Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, whereby defendant agreed to enter a plea of guilty to both counts. On January 23, 2019, defendant, accompanied by his counsel, appeared for an arraignment and entry of guilty plea proceeding. Defendant consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(3), to enter a guilty plea before a Magistrate Judge. See (Magistrate Judge may accept a guilty plea with the express consent of the defendant and where no objection to the report and recommendation is filed). Defendant also waived his right to an indictment in open court and after being advised of the nature of the charges and of his rights. See Fed. R. Crim P. 7(b).

During the plea proceeding, the undersigned observed the appearance and responsiveness of defendant in answering questions. Based on that observation, the undersigned is satisfied that, at the time he entered his guilty plea, defendant was in full possession of his faculties, was not suffering from any apparent physical or mental illness, and was not under the influence of narcotics or alcohol.

Prior to accepting defendant‘s plea, the undersigned addressed defendant personally and in open court and determined his competence to plead. Based on the observations of the undersigned, defendant understands the nature and meaning of the charges in the Superseding Information and the consequences of his plea of guilty to those charges. Defendant was also addressed personally and in open court and advised of each of the rights referred to in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Having engaged in the colloquy required by Rule 11, the Court concludes that defendant‘s plea is voluntary. Defendant acknowledged that the plea agreement signed by him, his attorney and the attorney for the United States and filed on November 30, 2018, represents the only promises made by anyone regarding the charges in the Superseding Information. Defendant was advised that the District Judge may accept or reject the plea agreement. Defendant was further advised that, if the Court refuses to accept the plea agreement, defendant will have the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea but that, if he does not withdraw his guilty plea, the District Judge may impose a sentence that is more severe than the sentence contemplated in the plea agreement, up to the statutory maximums.

Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts supporting the charge, which is attached to the plea agreement. He confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of the Superseding Information because he is in fact guilty of those offenses. The Court concludes that there is a factual basis for the plea.

The Court concludes that defendant‘s plea of guilty to Counts 1 and 2 of the Superseding Information is knowingly and voluntarily made with understanding of the nature and meaning of the charges and of the consequences of the plea.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant‘s guilty plea to Counts 1 and 2 of the Superseding Information be accepted. Decision on acceptance or rejection of the plea agreement was deferred for consideration by the District Judge after the preparation of a presentence investigation report.

In accordance with S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 32.1, and as expressly agreed to by defendant through counsel, a written presentence investigation report will be prepared by the United States Probation Office. Defendant will be asked to provide information; defendant‘s attorney may be present if defendant so wishes. Objections to the presentence report must be made in accordance with the rules of this Court.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. F.R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See ; ; .

January 23, 2019

Date

s/ Norah McCann King

Norah McCann King

United States Magistrate Judge

Notes

1
The Plea Agreement, ECF No. 23, was executed pursuant to the provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) and includes an appellate waiver provision that preserves only certain claims for appeal. Under the Plea Agreement, defendant also agrees not to contest the forfeiture provision contained in the Superseding Information, and agrees to an order of restitution.
Read the detailed case summary