USA v. Ledbetter

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs. 	Criminal Action 	2:25-cr-113
JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON
LATRELL D. LEDBETTER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant Latrell D. Ledbetter previously pleaded not guilty to
an Indictment charging him with being a felon in possession of
firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (a)(8).
Indictment, ECF No. 4. The Indictment also includes a forfeiture
provision. Id. On December 10, 2025, defendant personally appeared
with his counsel at a change of plea proceeding. There is no plea
agreement. Defendant’s counsel confirmed that no formal plea offers
were made.
Defendant consented, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(3), to enter a
guilty plea before a Magistrate Judge. 	See United States v. Cukaj, 25
Fed.Appx. 290, 291(6th Cir. 2001)(Magistrate Judge may accept a guilty
plea with the express consent of the defendant and where no objection
to the report and recommendation is filed).
During the plea proceeding, the undersigned observed the
appearance and responsiveness of defendant in answering questions.
Based on that observation, the undersigned is satisfied that, at the
time he entered his guilty plea, defendant was in full possession of
his faculties, was not suffering from any apparent physical or mental
illness and was not under the influence of narcotics, other drugs, or
alcohol.
Prior to accepting defendant’s plea, the undersigned addressed
defendant personally and in open court and determined his competence
Case: 2:25-cr-00113-MHW Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
to plead. 	Based on the observations of the undersigned, defendant
understands the nature and meaning of the charge in the Indictment and
the consequences of his plea of guilty to that charge.
Defendant was also addressed personally and in open court and
advised of each of the rights referred to in Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure. Having engaged in the colloquy required
by Rule 11, the Court concludes that defendant’s plea is voluntary and
that his plea of guilty is not a result of promises made to him, nor
as a result of coercion, force, or threats of force.
Defendant was advised that all sentencing terms will be
determined by the District Judge. Defendant was further advised that,
if the sentence imposed is more severe than the sentence that
defendant expected, defendant may nevertheless not withdraw his guilty
plea on that basis. However, defendant was also advised that both he
and the United States have the right to appeal the sentence imposed.
At the change of plea proceeding, the attorney for the United
States presented a statement of facts supporting the charge. Defendant
agreed with that statement of facts and, in response to inquiry by the
Court, expressly agreed to facts satisfying each of the essential
elements of the crime charged. Defendant confirmed that he is pleading
guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment because he is in fact guilty of
that crime. 	The Court concludes that there is a factual basis for the
plea.
The Court concludes that defendant’s plea of guilty to Count 1 of
the Indictment is knowingly and voluntarily made with understanding of
the nature and meaning of the charge and of the consequences of the
plea.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant’s guilty plea to Count
1 of the Indictment be accepted.
In accordance with S.D. Ohio Crim. R. 32.1, and as expressly
agreed to by defendant through counsel, a written presentence
investigation report will be prepared by the United States Probation
Office. 	Defendant will be asked to provide information; defendant’s
Case: 2:25-cr-00113-MHW Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
attorney may be present if defendant so wishes. 	Objections to the
presentence report must be made in accordance with the rules of this
Court.
If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report
and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file
and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,
specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part
thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 	28
U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). 	Response to objections must be
filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof. 	F.R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to
de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the
decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.
See United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878 (6th Cir. 2019);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
December 10, 2025 	s/ 	Norah McCann King
Date 	Norah Mc Cann King
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 2:25-cr-00113-MHW Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/10/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>