govinfo:USCOURTS-kyed-6_25-cr-00071-1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
LONDON 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
          Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
COREY COTTRELL, 
 
          Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
No. 6:25-CR-71-REW-HAI-3 
 
 
ORDER 
***  ***  ***  *** 
After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 124 (Minute Entry), United States 
Magistrate Judge Hanly A. Ingram recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Cottrell’s 
guilty plea and adjudge him guilty of a lesser-included offense of  Count 1 of  the Superseding 
Indictment—specifically, conspiracy to distribute  50 grams or more of a mixture or substance 
containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance (DE 38).  
See DE 125 (Recommendation); see also DE  126 (Plea Agreement).   Judge Ingram expressly 
informed Defendant of his  right to object to the recommendation  and to secure de novo review 
from the undersigned.  See DE 125 at 2–3.  The established, three -day objection deadline  has 
passed, and no party has objected. 
The Court is not required to “review . . . a magistrate[ judge]’s factual or legal conclusions, 
under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”  Thomas v. 
Arn, 106 S. Ct. 466, 472 (1985); see also  Berkshire v. Dahl , 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019) 
(noting that the Sixth Circuit has “long held that, when a defendant does ‘not raise an argument in 
his objections to the magistrate[ judge]’s report and recommendation . . . he has forfeited his right 
to raise this issue on appeal’” (quote brackets simplified) (quoting Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 
Case: 6:25-cr-00071-REW-HAI     Doc #: 129     Filed: 06/15/26     Page: 1 of 2 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
2 
 
176 (6th Cir. 1996))); United States v. Olano, 133 S. Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993) (distinguishing waiver 
and forfeiture); F ED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(2)–(3) (limiting de novo review duty to “any objection” 
filed); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (limiting de novo review duty to “those portions” of the 
recommendation “to which objection is made”). 
The Court thus, with no objection from any party and on full review of the record, 
ORDERS as follows: 
1. The Court ADOPTS DE 125, ACCEPTS Cottrell’s guilty plea, and ADJUDGES him 
guilty of a lesser-included offense of Count 1 of the Superseding Indictment, to with 
conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of a meth mixture (DE 38); 
2. The Court will issue a separate sentencing order.1 
This the 15th day of June, 2026. 
 
 
 
1 At the hearing, Judge Ingram remanded Cottrell to custody.  See DE 124 at 2.  This was his status following 
his arraignment on the S uperseding Indictment.  See DE 84 at 2.  Absent intervening orders, Defendant 
shall remain in custody pending sentencing. 
Case: 6:25-cr-00071-REW-HAI     Doc #: 129     Filed: 06/15/26     Page: 2 of 2 - Page
ID#: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight