United States of America v. Thurman

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDICE THURMAN,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:25-CR-487
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Amanda M. Knapp’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) that the Court accept Defendant Brandice Thurman’s (“Defendant”)
plea of guilty and enter a finding of guilty against Defendant. ECF No. 15.
On September 26, 2025, the Government filed an Information against Defendant alleging
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, wire fraud. The Court issued an order referring the matter to the
United States Magistrate Judge for the purpose of conducting an arraignment and receiving
Defendant’s guilty plea. ECF No. 8.
On November 13, 2025, Magistrate Judge Knapp conducted a hearing during which
Defendant consented to the order of referral (ECF No. 12) and entered a plea of guilty to Count 1
of the Information. Magistrate Judge Knapp received Defendant’s guilty plea, and issued a
Report recommending that this Court accept Defendant Brandice Thurman’s plea and enter a
finding of guilty. ECF No. 15.
The time limitation to file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation has expired and neither party has filed objections or requested an extension of
time.
Case: 1:25-cr-00487-BYP Doc #: 18 Filed: 12/08/25 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:25-CR-487)
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b) states:
Before the court accepts a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the defendant may be
placed under oath, and the court must address the defendant personally in open
court. During this address, the court must inform the defendant of, and determine
that the defendant understands, the following: (A) the government’s right, in a
prosecution for perjury or false statement, to use against the defendant any
statement that the defendant gives under oath; (B) the right to plead not guilty, or
having already so pleaded, to persist in that plea; © the right to a jury trial; (D) the
right to be represented by counsel - and if necessary have the court appoint
counsel - at trial and at every other stage of the proceeding; (E) the right at trial to
confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be protected from compelled
self-incrimination, to testify and present evidence, and to compel the attendance of
witnesses; (F) the defendant’s waiver of these trial rights if the court accepts a
plea of guilty or nolo contendere; (G) the nature of each charge to which the
defendant is pleading; (H) any maximum possible penalty, including
imprisonment, fine, and term of supervised release; (I) any mandatory minimum
penalty; (J) any applicable forfeiture; (K) the court’s authority to order restitution;
(L) the court’s obligation to impose a special assessment; (M) in determining a
sentence, the court’s obligation to calculate the applicable sentencing-guideline
range and to consider that range, possible departures under the Sentencing
Guidelines, and other sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a); and (N) the
terms of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to appeal or to
collaterally attack the sentence.
The undersigned has reviewed the transcript and the Magistrate Judge’s R&R and finds,
that in her careful and thorough proceeding, Magistrate Judge Knapp satisfied the requirements
of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and the United States Constitution. Defendant was placed under oath and
determined to be competent to enter a plea of guilty. Defendant was made aware of the charges
and consequences of conviction and her rights and waiver thereof. Magistrate Judge Knapp also
correctly determined that Defendant had consented to proceed before the magistrate judge and
tendered her plea of guilty knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Furthermore, the magistrate
judge also correctly found that there was an adequate factual basis for the plea.
-2-
Case: 1:25-cr-00487-BYP Doc #: 18 Filed: 12/08/25 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:25-CR-487)
Upon de novo review of the record, the Report and Recommendation is adopted.
Therefore, Defendant Brandice Thurman is adjudged guilty of Count 1 of the Information, wire
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 8, 2025
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
-3-
Case: 1:25-cr-00487-BYP Doc #: 18 Filed: 12/08/25 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>