USA v. Cooksey

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL JOSEPH COOKSEY,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:19-CR-00014-SLG-DMS
ORDER
At an arraignment on first superseding indictment (Docket 69) and proposed
change of plea hearing held before Judge Deborah M. Smith, defendant Michael
Joseph Cooksey entered an oral plea of guilty to Count 1 of the First Superseding
Indictment. At Docket 78, Judge Smith issued her Final Report and
Recommendation, in which she recommended that the District Court accept the
defendant’s guilty plea. No objections to the Final Report and Recommendation
were filed.
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That
statute provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”1 A court is
to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report
1 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Case 3:19-cr-00014-SLG-MMS Document 81 Filed 11/19/19 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:19-cr-00014-SLG-DMS, USA v. Michael Joseph Cooksey
Order
Page 2 of 2
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”2
But as to those topics on which no objections are filed, “[n]either the Constitution
nor [28U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and
recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”3
The magistrate judge recommended that the Court accept the plea of guilty.
The Court has reviewed the Final Report and Recommendation and agrees with
its analysis. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Final Report and Recommendation,
and IT IS ORDERED that Mr. Cooksey’s guilty plea to Count 1 of the First
Superseding Indictment is ACCEPTED and he is adjudged GUILTY of Count 1. IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court ACCEPTS Mr. Cooksey’s admission to
the forfeiture allegation.
The Court’s decision on whether to accept the terms of the parties’ plea
agreement will be deferred until a pre-sentence report by the probation office and
any written objections have been filed.
DATED this 19th day of November, 2019 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 Id.
3 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard,
when neither party objects to those findings.”).
Case 3:19-cr-00014-SLG-MMS Document 81 Filed 11/19/19 Page 2 of 2