USA v. Nguyen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, Case No. 3:26-cr-73
vs.
THU HA NGUYEN, District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry
Defendant.
ORDER: (1) ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. No. 33); (2) ACCEPTING DEFENDANT’S PLEA
OF GUILTY AS CHARGED IN COUNT ONE OF THE INFORMATION; (3)
DEFERRING THE DECISION OF WHETHER TO ACCEPT THE PLEA AGREEMENT
UNTIL THE SENTENCING HEARING; (4) ADVISING COUNSEL FOR BOTH SIDES
THAT VOLUNTARY SURRENDER IS ONLY AVAILABLE IN LIMITED
CIRCUMSTANCES AND DEFENDANTS ON BOND ARE TYPICALLY TAKEN INTO
CUSTODY AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE SENTENCING HEARING; (5) DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A HEARING (Doc. No. 36); AND (6) DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO REVOKE THE ORDER OF DETENTION (Doc. No. 35)
This criminal case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the
United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 33), recommending that the Court accept Defendant’s
guilty plea. There being no objections and for good cause shown, the Court ADOPTS the R&R
in full. The Court ACCEPTS Defendant’s plea of guilty as charged in Count 1 of the Information,
which charges her with wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The Court DEFERS the
decision of whether to accept the parties’ plea agreement until the sentencing hearing. Counsel
for both sides are ADVISED that voluntary surrender is only available in limited circumstances,
see 18 U.S.C. § 3142, and Defendants on bond are typically taken into custody at the conclusion
of the sentencing hearing.
Also before the Court is Defendant’s motion to revoke the Order of detention (Doc. No.
35), which was made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b) and filed nine days after Defendant pled
Case: 3:26-cr-00073-MJN Doc #: 37 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

guilty in this case. See Doc. No. 33. The Government did not file a response in opposition, and
the time for doing so has passed.
In light of the instant Order accepting Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court construes
Defendant’s motion as one being made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a). Under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3143(a), “presentencing detention is mandatory for a defendant facing a term of imprisonment
unless the defendant shows ‘by clear and convincing evidence that [she] is not likely to flee or
pose a danger to the safety of any other person of the community if released.’” United States v.
Sykes, 807 F. Appx. 553, 554 (6th Cir. 2020).
Given the applicable statutory provision, the Court finds a hearing on Defendant’s motion
unnecessary. Defendant’s motion for a hearing (Doc. No. 36) is therefore DENIED. Having
carefully considered Defendant’s motion to revoke, the Court finds that Defendant has not
overcome the presumption of presentencing detention. See 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1). Accordingly,
Defendant’s motion to revoke (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED and Defendant shall remain detained
pending sentencing.
IT IS SO ORDERED
October 13, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman
Hon. Michael J. Newman
United States District Judge
Case: 3:26-cr-00073-MJN Doc #: 37 Filed: 10/13/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>