govinfo:USCOURTS-kyed-6_26-cr-00045-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
SOUTHERN DIVISION 
LONDON 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
          Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
ROBERTO CARLOS CASTILLO-
LEAL, 
 
          Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
 
 
 
No. 6:26-CR-45-REW-HAI 
 
 
ORDER 
***  ***  ***  *** 
After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 22 (Minute Entry), United States Magistrate 
Judge Hanly A. Ingram recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Castillo-Leal’s guilty 
plea and adjudge him guilty of Count 1 and Count 2 of the Indictment (DE 1).  See DE 23 
(Recommendation); see also DE  18 (Plea Agreement).  J udge Ingram expressly informed 
Defendant of his right  to object to the recommendation  and to secure de novo review from the 
undersigned.  See DE 23 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, 
176 (6th Cir. 1996))); United States v. Olano, 133 S. Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993) (distinguishing waiver 
Case: 6:26-cr-00045-REW-HAI     Doc #: 25     Filed: 06/17/26     Page: 1 of 2 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
2 
 
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 23, ACCEPTS Castillo-Leal’s guilty plea, and ADJUDGES 
him guilty of Count 1 and Count 2 of the Indictment (DE 1); 
2. The Court will issue a separate sentencing order.1 
This the 17th day of June, 2026. 
 
 
 
1 At the hearing, Judge Ingram remanded Castillo-Leal to custody.  See DE 22 at 2.  This was his 
status following his arraignment.  See DE 8 at 2.  Absent intervening orders, Defendant shall 
remain in custody pending sentencing. 
Case: 6:26-cr-00045-REW-HAI     Doc #: 25     Filed: 06/17/26     Page: 2 of 2 - Page
ID#: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight