United States of America v. Flores

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRANDON FLORES,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 1:26cr48
DISTRICT JUDGE
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JAMES E. GRIMES JR.
REPORT &
RECOMMENDATION
Under General Order 99-49, the Court referred this matter to me for the
purpose of receiving, after consent, Defendant’s plea of guilty. The following, along
with the transcript or other record of the proceedings submitted with this
document, 	constitutes 	the 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	concerning 	the
Defendant’s plea of guilty:
1. 	On 	February 	4, 	2026, 	the 	Defendant,
accompanied by counsel, consented to proceeding before
a Magistrate Judge, waived his right to prosecution by
indictment, and proffered a plea of guilty.
2. 	The Defendant was examined as to his
competency to participate in a plea proceeding and was
found to be competent.
3. 	The 	Defendant 	acknowledged
understanding the nature of the charge contained in the
information and the maximum possible sentence and
mandatory 	minimum 	for 	the 	charge, 	including
imprisonment, fine, and term of supervised release.
Case: 1:26-cr-00048-CAB Doc #: 10 Filed: 02/04/26 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
4. 	The Defendant was advised of his rights to
plead not guilty; to trial; to confront and cross-examine
adverse witnesses; to be protected from compelled self-
incrimination; to testify; to present evidence; to present
witnesses and to compel their presence; and to stand on
or 	waive 	the 	privilege 	against 	self-incrimination.
Defendant acknowledged understanding that on the
Court’s acceptance of a plea of guilty, he was waiving
each of these rights. Defendant was also advised of his
right to representation by counsel, including appointed
counsel, at all stages of the proceedings.
5. 	The 	Defendant 	acknowledged
understanding 	the 	Court’s 	authority 	to 	order
restitution and 	its 	obligation 	to 	impose a 	special
assessment.
6. 	The 	Defendant 	acknowledged
understanding the court’s obligation to calculate the
applicable sentencing-guideline range and to consider
that range, possible departures under the Sentencing
Guidelines, and 	other sentencing factors 	under 	18
U.S.C. § 3553(a).
7. 	The 	Defendant 	acknowledged
understanding 	the 	terms 	of 	the 	plea-agreement
provision waiving his right to appeal or to collaterally
attack the sentence the Court will impose.
8. 	The 	Defendant 	was 	advised 	that 	the
government would have the right, in a prosecution for
perjury, to use any statement he makes under oath.
9. 	The 	parties 	provided 	sufficient
information 	about 	the 	charged 	offense 	and 	the
Defendant’s conduct to establish a factual basis for the
plea.
10. 	I questioned the Defendant under oath
about the knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature of
his guilty plea, and find that the Defendant’s plea was
offered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
Case: 1:26-cr-00048-CAB Doc #: 10 Filed: 02/04/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
In light of the above and the record submitted herewith, all requirements
imposed by 	the United States 	Constitution and 	Federal Rule of 	Criminal
Procedure 11 have been satisfied. I therefore recommend that the plea of guilty be
accepted and a finding of guilty be entered by the Court.
s/James E. Grimes Jr.
James E. Grimes Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: February 4, 2026
ANY OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with
the Clerk of Court within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report
and Recommendation. Failure to file objections within the specified time may
forfeit the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Berkshire v. Beauvais,
928 F.3d 520, 530-531 (6th Cir. 2019); United States v. Droganes, 728 F.3d 580,
586 (6th Cir. 2013).
Case: 1:26-cr-00048-CAB Doc #: 10 Filed: 02/04/26 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>