USA v. Garnett et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARVIOUS HESTER,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:24-CR-45(3)
District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1
This case came before the Court for a plea hearing on December 1, 2025. Assistant United
States Attorney Amy Smith appeared and represented the Government. Defendant was present at
the hearing and was represented by Attorney Jon Paul Rion.
Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a proposed binding plea agreement pursuant to
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), which agreement has been filed of record. (Doc. #240). Under the
terms of the plea agreement, Defendant agreed to plead guilty to Count 1 and Count 6 as charged
in the Indictment currently pending against him, which Count 1 charges him with Conspiracy to
Possess with Intent to Distribute 40 grams or more of Fentanyl and 500 grams or more of Cocaine,
in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and Count 6 charges him with Money
Laundering in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h) and 1956(a)(1)(A)(i).
During the plea hearing, the undersigned had the opportunity to address Defendant in open
court and to inform Defendant of all rights and privileges as set forth in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1).
Further, the undersigned carefully inquired of Defendant regarding his understanding of the
1 Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation.
Case: 3:24-cr-00045-MJN Doc #: 241 Filed: 12/02/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
agreement, as well as his competence to understand the agreement. 	Having fully inquired, the
undersigned Judicial Officer finds that Defendant’s tendered plea of guilty to Count 1 and Count
6 as charged in the Indictment was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Additionally, based upon
the statement of facts, which were read into the record and affirmed by Defendant, the undersigned
finds that there is a sufficient factual basis for finding that Defendant is in fact guilty of Conspiracy
to Possess with Intent to Distribute 40 grams or more of Fentanyl and 500 grams or more of
Cocaine, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and Money Laundering in
violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h) and 1956(a)(1)(A)(i).
Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the District Court accept
Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 and Count 6 as charged in the Indictment currently pending
against him and find him guilty as charged of Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute 40
grams or more of Fentanyl and 500 grams or more of Cocaine, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and Money Laundering in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h) and
1956(a)(1)(A)(i).
Pending the Court’s acceptance of Defendant’s guilty plea, Defendant has been referred to
the Probation Department for a pre-sentence investigation and report.
December 2, 2025 	s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:24-cr-00045-MJN Doc #: 241 Filed: 12/02/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being
served with this Report and Recommendation. Such objections shall specify the portions of the
Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections.
If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record
at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or
such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless
the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir.
1981).
Case: 3:24-cr-00045-MJN Doc #: 241 Filed: 12/02/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>