USA v. Malory et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 1:25-cr-00171-2
ARRONTIKIF MAURICE MALORY, 	Hon. Paul L. Maloney
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 February 27, 2026, 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 Arrontikif Maurice Malory is charged in Count 2 of the Indictment with
felon in possession of a firearm. On the basis of this record, I found that defendant was competent
to enter a plea of guilty and that his 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 his plea, and that the defendant's plea had a
sufficient basis in fact which contained all of the elements of the offense charged.
There was no plea agreement in this case.
I accepted the plea of guilty, subject to final acceptance of the plea by the District
Judge. 	I ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation report.
Case 1:25-cr-00171-PLM ECF No. 58, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Recommendation
Based upon the foregoing, I respectfully recommend that the defendant's plea of
guilty to Count 2 of the Indictment be accepted, and that the Court adjudicate the defendant guilty
of that charge.
Entered: February 27, 2026 	/s/ Ray Kent
RAY KENT
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, 322-23 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1030
(1997); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
Case 1:25-cr-00171-PLM ECF No. 58, PageID.<pageID> Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 2