Case 1:14-cr-00072-PLM ECF No. 234 filed 12/10/14 PageID.1321 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:14-CR-72 v. Hon. Paul L. Maloney KATHLEEN ROSENGREN, Defendant. / REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to W.D. Mich. LCrR 11.1 and upon a request of the district court, I conducted a felony plea hearing in this matter on December 10, 2014, after receiving the written consent of the defendant, the defendant's attorney, and the attorney for the government. These consents were also placed on the record in open court. Defendant Kathleen Rosengren is charged in a Superseding Information with possession with intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana. On the basis of the record made at the hearing, I found that defendant was competent to enter a plea of guilty and that the plea was knowledgeable and voluntary with a full understanding of each of the rights waived by the defendant, that the defendant fully understood the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea, and that the defendant's plea had a sufficient basis in fact which contained all of the elements of the offense charged. I also inquired into the plea agreement. I found the plea agreement to have been knowingly and voluntarily made and found that it fully reflected all of the promises made by the 1  Case 1:14-cr-00072-PLM ECF No. 234 filed 12/10/14 PageID.1322 Page 2 of 2 parties. Accordingly, I accepted the plea of guilty, subject to final acceptance of the plea by the District Judge, and I specifically reserved acceptance of the plea agreement for the District Judge. I ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report. Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, I respectfully recommend that the defendant's plea of guilty to the Superseding Information be accepted, that the court adjudicate the defendant guilty of that charge, and that the written plea agreement be accepted at, or before, the time of sentencing. Dated: December 10, 2014 /s/ Hugh W. Brenneman, Jr. HUGH W. BRENNEMAN, JR. United States Magistrate Judge NOTICE TO PARTIES You have the right to de novo review by the district judge of the foregoing findings. Any application for review must be in writing, must specify the portions of the findings or proceedings objected to, and must be filed and served no later than fourteen (l4) days after the plea hearing. See W.D. Mich. LCrR 11.1(b). A failure to file timely objections may result in the waiver of any further right to seek appellate review of the plea-taking procedure. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Neuman v. Rivers, 125 F.3d 315" date_filed="1997-09-04" court="6th Cir." case_name="David Neuman v. Jessie Rivers">125 F.3d 315, 322-23 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1030" date_filed="1997-12-15" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Murphy v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board of California">522 U.S. 1030 (1997); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947" date_filed="1981-01-20" court="6th Cir." case_name="United States v. W. R. Walters, United States of America v. Two Hundred Sixty-Two Firearms">638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 2