USA v. Ferrell et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs. 	2:25-cr-166(3)
Case No. 2:
JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON
DE’MICHAEL BERRY
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendant De’Michael Berry previously pleaded not guilty to an
Indictment charging him with conspiracy to distribute and to possess
with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of fentanyl and a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §
846 (Count 1), and possession with intent to distribute 40 grams or
more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
fentanyl and a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(Count 2). Indictment, ECF No.
6. The Indictment also contains a forfeiture provision. Id. The United
States and defendant thereafter entered into a Plea Agreement, ECF No.
50,1 executed pursuant to the provisions of Rule 11(c)(1)(A) of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, whereby defendant agreed to enter
a plea of guilty to the conspiracy charge in Count 1. On February 19,
2026, defendant personally appeared with his counsel for a change of
plea proceeding.
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
1 The Plea Agreement contains an appellate waiver that preserves only
certain claims for appeal, collateral challenge, and motion for reduction of
sentence. In the Plea Agreement, defendant agreed to the forfeiture provision
in the Indictment.
Case: 2:25-cr-00166-MHW Doc #: 54 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
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
to plead. 	Based on the observations of the undersigned, defendant
understands the nature and meaning of the charges against him in the
Indictment and the consequences of his plea of guilty to Count 1.
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. 	Defendant acknowledged
that the Plea Agreement signed by him, his attorney, and the attorney
for the United States and filed on February 11, 2026, represents the
only promises made by anyone regarding the charges against him in the
Indictment. 	Defendant was advised that the District Judge may accept
or reject the Plea Agreement and that all sentencing terms will be
determined by the District Judge. Defendant was further advised that,
even if the District Judge refuses to accept any provision of the Plea
Agreement not binding on the Court, or if the sentence imposed is more
severe than the sentence that defendant expected, defendant may
nevertheless not withdraw his guilty plea on that basis.
Defendant confirmed the accuracy of the statement of facts
supporting the charge, which is attached to the Plea Agreement. 	He
confirmed that he is pleading guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment
Case: 2:25-cr-00166-MHW Doc #: 54 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
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 charges and of the consequences of the
plea to Count 1.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that defendant’s guilty plea to Count
1 of the Indictment be accepted. 	Decision on acceptance or rejection
of the Plea Agreement was deferred for consideration by the District
Judge after the preparation of a presentence investigation report.
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
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 forfeiture 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).
February 19, 2026 	s/ 	Norah McCann King
Date 	Norah Mc Cann King
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 2:25-cr-00166-MHW Doc #: 54 Filed: 02/19/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>