USA v. Garcia-Romero, et al.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:21-cr-00167-JLS-JJM Document501_ Filed 05/02/25 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
v. Case No. 1:21-cr-0167-JLS-JJM
MELANY RIVERO-ANDRILLON,

Defendant.

Upon District Judge John L. Sinatra’s order, and with the defendant’s agreement,
this case was referred to me to take the defendant’s plea of guilty and to conduct an allocution
pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. (“Rule”) 11 for a Report and Recommendation. The following is
my Report and Recommendation as to the defendant’s plea of guilty.

On April 4, 2025, defendant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Superseding
Information. It is my recommendation that defendant’s plea of guilty accords with the
requirements of Rule 11, and that defendant should therefore be adjudged guilty of the offenses
to which the guilty plea was offered.

For the reasons stated on the record and agreed to by the parties, the time from
today until Judge Sinatra rules on this Report and Recommendation is excluded from the Speedy
Trial Act calendar pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§3161(h)(1)(G), (h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(iv).

Unless otherwise ordered by Judge Sinatra, any objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be filed with the clerk of this court by May 16, 2025. Any requests for
an extension of this deadline must be made to Judge Sinatra. A party who “fails to object

timely ... waives any right to further judicial review of [this] decision”. Wesolek v. Canadair

Ltd., 838 F. 2d 55, 58 (2d Cir. 1988); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985).

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:21-cr-00167-JLS-JJM Document501_ Filed 05/02/25 Page 2 of 2

Moreover, the district judge will ordinarily refuse to consider de novo arguments,
case law and/or evidentiary material which could have been, but were not, presented to the

magistrate judge in the first instance. Patterson-Leitch Co. v. Massachusetts Municipal

Wholesale Electric Co., 840 F. 2d 985, 990-91 (1st Cir. 1988).

The parties are reminded that, pursuant to Rule 59(c)(2) of this Court’s Local
Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[w]ritten objections . . . shall specifically identify the portions of
the proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis for each
objection, and shall be supported by legal authority”, and pursuant to Local Rule 59(c)(3), the
objections must include “a written statement either certifying that the objections do not raise new
legal/factual arguments, or identifying the new arguments and explaining why they were not
raised to the Magistrate Judge”. Failure to comply with these provisions may result in the
district judge’s refusal to consider the objection.

Dated: May 2, 2025

JBREMIAH J/MCCART
United States Magistrate’ Judge