USA v. Dixon et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN DIXON,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 3:24-CR-73(2)
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. # 69 )
and the subsequent plea hearing, which was held on October 23, 2025. Assistant United States
Attorney Brent Tabacchi appeared and represented the Government. Defendant was present at the
hearing and was represented by Attorney Kory Akin Jackson.
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. #84). Under the
terms of the plea agreement, Defendant agreed to plead guilty to Count 4 as charged in the
Indictment currently pending against him, which charges him with knowing and intentional
distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts, its isomers, or salts of its isomers,
a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A).
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
1 Attached is a NOTICE to the parties regarding objections to this Report and Recommendation.
Case: 3:24-cr-00073-MJN-PBS Doc #: 86 Filed: 10/24/25 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
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 4 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 knowing and
intentional distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts, its isomers, or salts of
its isomers, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and
841(b)(1)(A).
Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the District Court GRANT the
parties’ Joint Motion to Change Plea (Doc. #69) and ACCEPT Defendant’s plea of guilty to Count
4 as charged in the Indictment currently pending against him and find him guilty as charged of
knowing and intentional distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, its salts, its
isomers, or salts of its isomers, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of Title 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A).
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.
October 24, 2025 	s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 3:24-cr-00073-MJN-PBS Doc #: 86 Filed: 10/24/25 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: 3:24-cr-00073-MJN-PBS Doc #: 86 Filed: 10/24/25 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>