USA v. Busbee et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DAMARION GALLOWAY,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:23-CR-116(3)
District Judge Michael J. Newman
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1
This case came before the Court for a plea hearing on December 15, 2025. Assistant United
States Attorney Amy Smith and Elizabeth Lyn McCormick appeared and represented the
Government. Defendant was present at the hearing and was represented by Attorney Lawrence
Joseph Greger.
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. #177). Under the
terms of the plea agreement, Defendant agreed to plead guilty to Amended Count 1 and Count 10
as charged in the Superseding Indictment currently pending against him. Amended Count 1
charges him with Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and to Distribute Cocaine,
Methamphetamine, and Fentanyl, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and
846; Count 10 charges him with Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking
Crime, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
1 Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation.
Case: 3:23-cr-00116-MJN Doc #: 183 Filed: 12/22/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

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).
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 Amended Count 1
and Count 10 as charged in the Superseding 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 Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and to Distribute Cocaine,
Methamphetamine, and Fentanyl, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and
846, and guilty of Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime, in violation
of Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the District Court accept
Defendant’s plea of guilty to Amended Count 1 and Count 10 as charged in the Superseding
Indictment currently pending against him and find him guilty as charged of Conspiracy to Possess
with Intent to Distribute and to Distribute Cocaine, Methamphetamine, and Fentanyl, in violation
of Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and 846, and of Possession of a Firearm in
Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
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.
December 22, 2025 	s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:23-cr-00116-MJN Doc #: 183 Filed: 12/22/25 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: 3:23-cr-00116-MJN Doc #: 183 Filed: 12/22/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>