USA v. Miller

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LONDON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN VINCENT MILLER,

Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 6:26- CR-63-REW-HAI

ORDER
*** *** *** ***
After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 26 (Minute Entry), United States Magistrate
Judge Hanly A. Ingram recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Miller’s guilty plea
and adjudge him guilty of Count 1, Count 2, Count 4, and Count 5 of the Indictment (DE 1). See
DE 27 (Recommendation); see also DE 25 (Plea Agreement). Judge Ingram expressly informed
Defendant of his right to object to the recommendation and to secure de novo review from the
undersigned. See DE 27 at 3. The established, three-day objection deadline has passed, and no
party has objected.
The Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate[ judge]’s factual or legal conclusions,
under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” Thomas v.
Arn, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472 (1985); see also Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019)
(noting that the Sixth Circuit has “long held that, when a defendant does ‘not raise an argument in
his objections to the magistrate[ judge]’s report and recommendation . . . he has forfeited his right
to raise this issue on appeal’” (quote brackets simplified) (quoting Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172,
176 (6th Cir. 1996))); United States v. Olano, 133 S. Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993) (distinguishing waiver
and forfeiture); FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(2)–(3) (limiting de novo review duty to “any objection”
Case: 6:26-cr-00063-REW-HAI Doc #: 29 Filed: 08/14/26 Page: 1 of 2 - Page
ID#: <pageID>

2

filed); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (limiting de novo review duty to “those portions” of the
recommendation “to which objection is made”).
The Court thus, with no objection from any party and on full review of the record,
ORDERS as follows:
1. The Court ADOPTS DE 27, ACCEPTS Miller’s guilty plea, and ADJUDGES him
guilty of Count 1, Count 2, Count 4, and Count 5 of the Indictment (DE 1);
2. Further, per Judge Ingram’s unopposed recommendation and Defendant’s agreement
(DE 25 ¶ 9), the Court provisionally FINDS that the property identified in the
Indictment (DE 1 at 3–4) is forfeitable and that Miller has an interest in said property,
and preliminarily ADJUDGES Defendant’s interest in such property FORFEITED.
Under Criminal Rule 32.2, and absent pre-judgment objection, “the preliminary
forfeiture order becomes final as to” Defendant at sentencing. F
ED. R. CRIM.
P. 32.2(b)(4)(A). The Court will further address forfeiture at that time. See id.
(b)(4)(B); and
3. The Court will issue a separate sentencing order.
1

This the 14th day of August, 2026.

1
At the hearing, Judge Ingram remanded Miller to custody. See DE 26 at 2. This was his status following
arraignment. See DE 7 at 2. Absent intervening orders, Defendant shall remain in custody pending
sentencing.
Case: 6:26-cr-00063-REW-HAI Doc #: 29 Filed: 08/14/26 Page: 2 of 2 - Page
ID#: <pageID>