UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Hon. Hugh B. Scott v. 09CR274S Report & SIXTO CELESTINO LOPEZ MORAN, Recommendation Defendant. By Order of Judge William M. Skretny dated August 17, 2009, the above case was l referred to the undersigned, with the consent of the defendant, to take the defendant’s plea of guilty and to conduct an allocution pursuant to Rule ll of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for a Report and Recommendation. The following is my Report and Recommendation as to the defendant’s plea of guilty. On September 2, 2009, the defendant entered a plea of guilty in this case, as set forth in the transcript of the plea proceeding, which is incorporated by reference in this written Report and Recommendation. In accordance with my findings at the close of the plea proceeding, it is my Report and Recommendation that the defendant’s plea of guilty accords with the requirements of Rule ll of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. lt is recommended that your Honor adjudge the defendant guilty of the offense(s) to which the guilty plea was offered. The time from September 2, 2009, until Judge Skretny rules on this Report and Recommendation is excluded from the Speedy Trial Act calendar pursuant to 18 U.s.C. §§ 3161(h)(1) and 3161(h)(1)(1). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 63 6(b)(l), it is hereby ordered that this Report & Recommendation be filed with the Clerk of the Court and that the Clerk shall send a copy of the Report & Recommendation to all parties. ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report & Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of this Court within ten (10) days after receipt of a copy of this Report & Recommendation in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Cr. P. 59(b)(2) and W.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 58.2(a)(3). FAILURE TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT & RECOMMENDATION WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME OR TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION OF SUCH TIME WAIVES THE RIGHT TO APPEAL ANY SUBSEQUENT DISTRICT COURT’S ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATICNS CONTAINED HEREIN. Thomas v. A_rn, 474 U.S. 140" date_filed="1986-01-27" court="SCOTUS" case_name="Thomas v. Arn">474 U.S. 140 (1985); F.D.I.C. v. Hillcrest Associates, 66 F.3d 566" date_filed="1995-10-02" court="2d Cir." case_name="The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Hillcrest Associates Charles Stelljas Jackie Chan Thomas Scozzofava">66 F.3d 566 (2d Cir. 1995); M_M v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55" date_filed="1988-01-27" court="2d Cir." case_name="Janet Wesolek As Administratrix of The Estate of Chester Wesolek v. Canadair Limited">838 F.2d 55 (2d Cir. 1988). The District Court on M review will ordinarily refuse to consider arguments, case law and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but was not, presented to the Magistrate Judge in the first instance. §§ Patterson-Leitch Co. Inc. v. Massachusetts Municioal Wholesale Electric Co., 840 F.2d 985" date_filed="1988-02-16" court="1st Cir." case_name="Paterson-Leitch Company, Inc. v. Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company">840 F.2d 985 (lst Cir. 1988). Finally, the parties are reminded that, pursuant to W.D.N.Y. Local Criminal Rule 58.2(a)(3), “written objections shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for such objection and shall be supported by legal authority.” Failure to comply with the provisions of Rule 58.2§21)13! may result in the District Court’s refusal to consider the objection. SO ORDERED. /¢/S~CLSRQS.§M Hon. Hugh B. Scott United States Magistrate Judge Dated: Buff`alo, New York September 8, 2009