USA v. Hancock

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ZACHARY HANCOCK,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:25-CR-101
District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1
This case came before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Change Plea (Doc. #17)
and the subsequent plea hearing, which was held on March 16, 2026. Assistant United States
Attorney Christina Mahy appeared and represented the Government. Defendant was present at the
hearing and was represented by Attorney Thomas Anderson.
Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a proposed binding plea agreement pursuant to
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), which agreement has been filed of record. (Doc. #16). Under the
terms of the plea agreement, Defendant agreed to plead guilty to Count 1 as charged in the
Indictment currently pending against him, which charges him with Possession of Child
Pornography, with a prior conviction under the laws of any state relating to aggravated sexual
abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2).
During the plea hearing, the undersigned had the opportunity to address Defendant in open
court and to inform Defendant of all rights and privileges as set forth in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1).
1 Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation.
Case: 3:25-cr-00101-MJN Doc #: 20 Filed: 03/17/26 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
Further, the undersigned carefully inquired of Defendant regarding his understanding of the
agreement, as well as his competence to understand the agreement. Having fully inquired, the
undersigned Judicial Officer finds that Defendant’s tendered plea of guilty to Count 1 as charged
in the Indictment was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Additionally, based upon the statement
of facts, which were read into the record and affirmed by Defendant, the undersigned finds that
there is a sufficient factual basis for finding that Defendant is in fact guilty of Possession of Child
Pornography, with a prior conviction under the laws of any state relating to aggravated sexual
abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2).
Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the District Court GRANT the
parties’ Joint Motion to Change Plea (Doc. #17) and ACCEPT Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count
1 as charged in the Indictment currently pending against him and find him guilty as charged of
Possession of Child Pornography, with a prior conviction under the laws of any state relating to
aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor, in violation
of Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2).
Pending the Court’s acceptance of Defendant’s guilty plea, Defendant has been referred to
the Probation Department for a pre-sentence investigation and report.
March 17, 2026 s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:25-cr-00101-MJN Doc #: 20 Filed: 03/17/26 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

3
NOTICE REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2), any party may serve and file specific, written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within FOURTEEN days after being
served with this Report and Recommendation. Such objections shall specify the portions of the
Report objected to and shall be accompanied by a memorandum of law in support of the objections.
If the Report and Recommendation is based in whole or in part upon matters occurring of record
at an oral hearing, the objecting party shall promptly arrange for the transcription of the record, or
such portions of it as all parties may agree upon or the Magistrate Judge deems sufficient, unless
the assigned District Judge otherwise directs. A party may respond to another party’s objections
within FOURTEEN days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to make objections in accordance with this procedure may forfeit rights on appeal.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir.
1981).
Case: 3:25-cr-00101-MJN Doc #: 20 Filed: 03/17/26 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>