USA v. Lloyd

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:25-cr-00244-RJA-JJM Document19_ Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Sree BIC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
v. Case No. 1:25-cr-0244
DONNELL LLOYD,
Defendant.

Upon District Richard J. Arcara’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 January 23, 2026, defendant entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the
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 Arcara 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 Arcara, any objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be filed with the clerk of this court by February 6, 2026. Any requests
for an extension of this deadline must be made to Judge Arcara. 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 1:25-cr-00244-RJA-JJM Document19_ Filed 01/23/26 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: January 23, 2026