Reported / Citable
Background
Kevin Elthonda Lee appeared with defense counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland on July 28, 2026, pursuant to a referral from the district judge. Lee consented to enter a guilty plea before the magistrate judge and pleaded guilty on the record.
Judge Gilliland personally addressed Lee in open court and administered the advisements required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The court explained the nature of the charge, possible penalties, Lee’s constitutional and statutory rights, and the consequences of pleading guilty. Lee acknowledged understanding those matters.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Lee was competent to stand trial, had consented to plead guilty before a magistrate judge, understood the charge and potential penalties, and knowingly wished to waive the applicable constitutional and statutory rights. The judge also found that Lee’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.
Judge Gilliland further found that Lee was satisfied with counsel’s representation and had no complaints about it. Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report and recommendation did not itself accept the plea or enter judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Lee consented to plead guilty before a magistrate judge and entered the plea in open court.
- The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11’s competency, understanding, voluntariness, waiver, and factual-basis requirements.
- The parties had 14 days after service to file specific written objections to the report and recommendation.
Why It Matters
The report documents the procedural safeguards used to determine whether Lee’s guilty plea was valid. It also preserves the district judge’s role as the final decision-maker by recommending, rather than ordering, acceptance of the plea and entry of judgment.
A party’s failure to file timely, specific objections may forfeit de novo district-court review and generally limit later appellate challenges to plain-error review.