USA v. Bigham

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
vs. 	Criminal Action 2:26-cr-015
JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON
CARSON A. BIGHAM
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The United States and defendant Carson A. Bigham entered into a
Plea Agreement, ECF No. 43, executed pursuant to the provisions of
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), whereby defendant agreed to plead guilty
to an Information, ECF No. 42, charging him with receipt of child
pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2),(b)(1).1 The
Information also includes a forfeiture provision. 	Id. On February 4,
2026, defendant personally appeared with his counsel for an
arraignment and entry of guilty plea proceeding.
Defendant waived his right to an indictment in open court and
after being advised of the nature of the charge and of his rights.
See Fed. R. Crim P. 7(b).
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.
1 In addition to specifying sentencing terms, the Plea Agreement
includes an appellate waiver provision that preserves only certain claims for
appeal, collateral challenge, or motion for reduction of sentence. Under the
Plea Agreement, defendant agreed to forfeiture and restitution obligations
and Defendant acknowledged that an additional assessment may be imposed
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2259A. Defendant also acknowledged registration
requirements under SORNA, and special conditions of supervised release
associated with the crime to which he pleads guilty. The parties agreed at
the arraignment that the issue of imposition of a fine, if any, is left for
determination by the District Judge.
Case: 2:26-cr-00015-MHW Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/04/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
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 charge in the Information
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. 	Defendant acknowledged
that the Plea Agreement signed by him, his attorney, and the attorney
for the United States and filed on January 15, 2026, represents the
only promises made by anyone regarding the charge in the Information.2
Defendant was advised that the District Judge may accept or reject the
Plea Agreement. Defendant was further advised that, if the District
Judge refuses to accept the Plea Agreement, defendant will have the
opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea but that, if he does not
withdraw his guilty plea under those circumstances, the District Judge
may impose a sentence that is more severe than the sentence
contemplated in the Plea Agreement, up to the statutory maximum.
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 Information
2 Defendant hesitated slightly in answering the Court’s question
regarding the Statement of Facts. The Court thereupon recessed the Court to
permit defendant to confer with his counsel. When the proceeding resumed,
defendant expressly confirmed his agreement with the Statement of Facts and
reiterated that he entered into the Plea Agreement freely and voluntarily,
and not because of force, threats of force, or coercion of any kind.
Case: 2:26-cr-00015-MHW Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/04/26 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 Information 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 Information 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 the 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 4, 2026 	s/ 	Norah McCann King
Date 	Norah Mc Cann King
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 2:26-cr-00015-MHW Doc #: 48 Filed: 02/04/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>