U.S. v. JIMENEZ

No. CR16-4084-LTS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROGELIO MAGANA GARCIA JIMENEZ, Defendant.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Rogelio Magana Garcia Jimenez, Defendant, represented by Bradley Ryan Hansen , Federal Public Defender's Office.

Saul Piceno-Valtierra, Defendant, represented by John P. Greer , Greer Law Office.

Marcus Cervantes Martinez, Defendant, represented by Jared Robert Weber , Jared R. Weber Law Office.

Javier Martinez, Defendant, represented by Rees Conrad Douglas .

Sergio Lopez-Granillo, Defendant, represented by Joshua W. Weir , Josh Weir Law Office.

Daniel Perez Heredia, Defendant, represented by Stuart J. Dornan , Dornan, Lustgarten & Troia, PC, LLO.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn Stephen Wehde , US Attorney's Office.


ORDER

LEONARD T. STRAND, Chief District Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 5, 2016, defendant was charged in Counts 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, and 12 in a twelve-count indictment. On February 28, 2017, defendant appeared before the Honorable Kelly K.E. Mahoney, United States Magistrate Judge, and entered pleas of guilty to Counts 1 and 5 of the indictment. On March 1, 2017, Judge Mahoney filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which she recommended that defendant's guilty pleas be accepted. Doc. No. 116. No objections to the R&R were filed. I therefore undertake the necessary review of Judge Mahoney's recommendation to accept defendant's pleas in this case.

II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS

A district judge must review a magistrate judge's R&R in a criminal case under the following standards:

Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b). Thus, when a party objects to any portion of an R&R, the district judge must undertake a de novo review of that portion.

Any portions of an R&R to which no objections have been made must be reviewed under at least a "clearly erroneous" standard. See, e.g., Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting that when no objections are filed "[the district court judge] would only have to review the findings of the magistrate judge for clear error"). As the Supreme Court has explained, "[a] finding is `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). However, a district judge may elect to review an R&R under a more-exacting standard even if no objections are filed:

Any party that desires plenary consideration by the Article III judge of any issue need only ask. Moreover, while the statute does not require the judge to review an issue de novo if no objections are filed, it does not preclude further review by the district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

III. DISCUSSION

Because neither party objects to the R&R, I have reviewed it for clear error. Based on that review, I am not "left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Anderson, 470 U.S. at 573-74. As such, I hereby accept the R&R without modification and accept defendant's pleas of guilty in this case as to Counts 1 and 5 of the indictment.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. United States v. Cortez-Hernandez, ___ F. App'x ___, 2016 WL 7174114 (8th Cir. Dec. 9, 2016) (per curiam), suggests that a defendant may have the right to de novo review of a magistrate judge's recommendation to accept a plea of guilty even if no objection is filed. But see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b). I will undertake a de novo review of the R&R if a written request for such review is filed within seven (7) days after this order is filed.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases