govinfo:USCOURTS-kyed-6_25-cr-00070-2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT     
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY     
SOUTHERN DIVISION     
LONDON     
     
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,     
     
          Plaintiff,     
     
v.     
     
VICKIE MARIE ROSE,     
     
          Defendant.     
)     
)     
)     
)     
)     
)     
)     
     
     
     
     
No. 6:25-CR-70-REW  
     
ORDER     
***  ***  ***  ***     
 After conducting Rule 11 proceedings, see DE 51 (Minute Entry), United States Magistrate 
Judge Hanly A. Ingram recommended that the undersigned accept Defendant Vickie Marie Rose’s 
guilty plea and adjudge her guilty of Count One of the Indictment (DE 1).  See DE 53 
(Recommendation); see also DE 50 (Plea Agreement).  Judge Ingram expressly informed Rose of 
her right to object to the recommendation and secure de novo review from the undersigned.  See 
DE 53 at 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 
[her] objections to the magistrate [judge]’s report and recommendation . . . [s]he has forfeited [her] 
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 , 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1777 (1993) (distinguishing 
waiver and forfeiture); FED. 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”). 
Case: 6:25-cr-00070-REW-HAI     Doc #: 54     Filed: 06/09/26     Page: 1 of 2 - Page
ID#: <pageID>
2 
 
The Court, with no objection from any party and on full review of the record, ORDERS 
as follows: 
1. The Court ADOPTS DE 53, ACCEPTS Rose’s guilty plea, and ADJUDGES Rose guilty 
of Count One of the Indictment. 
2. Further, per Judge Ingram’s recommendation (DE 53 at 2), Defendant’s plea agreement 
(DE 50 ¶ 8), and an audit of the rearraignment hearing, the Court provisionally FINDS that 
the property identified in the Indictment’s Forfeiture Allegations, DE 1 at 1-2 (firearms 
and ammunition, accessories), is forfeitable.  Defendant has an interest in said property, 
and the Court preliminarily ADJUDGES Defendant’s interest in such property 
FORFEITED.  Under Criminal Rule 32.2, and absent pre -judgment objection, “the 
preliminary forfeiture order becomes final as to” Defendant at sentencing.  FED. R. CRIM. 
P. 32.2 (b)(4)(A).  The Court will further address forfeiture, and reflect any administrative 
forfeiture that is concluded, at that time.  See id. at (b)(4)(B); and 
3. The Court will issue a separate sentencing order.1 
This the 9th day of June, 2026.  
 
 
 
 
1 At the hearing, Judge Ingram remanded Rose to custody.  See DE 51.  This was her status pretrial.  See 
DE 12.  Absent an intervening order, Rose will remain in custody pending sentencing. 
Case: 6:25-cr-00070-REW-HAI     Doc #: 54     Filed: 06/09/26     Page: 2 of 2 - Page
ID#: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight