Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Anderson

United States District Court, Northern District of Iowa, Western Division

December 10, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JAROLD PAUL ANDERSON, Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING GUILTY PLEA

Donald E. O' Brien, Senior Judge

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Leonard T. Strand’s Report and Recommendation Concerning Guilty Plea (Docket No. 8.

On October 1, 2014, a one count Information (Docket No. 2) was filed in the above-referenced case. On October 15, 2014, Defendant Jarold Paul Anderson entered a guilty plea to Count 1 of the Information before United States Magistrate Judge Leonard T. Strand.

Count 1 of the Information charges “Conspiracy to Distribute a Controlled Substance” stating, that between about 2010 and July 2014, in the Northern District of Iowa and elsewhere, defendant Jarold Paul Anderson, did knowingly and intentionally combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with other persons known and unknown, to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, which contained actual (pure) methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance.

This was in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846.

The Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 8), states that there is a plea agreement[1] and recommends that defendant Jarold Paul Anderson’s guilty plea be accepted. Waivers of objections to Judge Strand’s Report and Recommendation were filed by each party (Docket Nos. 9 and 10). The Court, therefore, undertakes the necessary review to accept defendant Jarold Paul Anderson’s plea in this case.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

Pursuant to statue, this Court’s standard of review for a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is as follows:

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].

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides for review of a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation on dispositive motions and prisoner petitions, where objections are made as follows:

The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to which specific written objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommendation decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

As mentioned, waivers of objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, and it appears to the Court upon review of Magistrate Judge Strand’s findings and conclusions that there are no grounds to reject or modify them.

IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that this Court accepts Magistrate Judge Strand’s Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 8), and accepts defendant Jarold Paul Anderson’s pleas of guilty in this case to Count 1 of the Information (Docket No. 2).

IT IS SO ORDERED .


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.