Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

United States v. Sanchez

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

May 30, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
GUSTAVO SANCHEZ, Defendant.

          ORDER REGARDING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING DEFENDANT'S GUILTY PLEA

          MARK W. BENNETT, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         I. BACKGROUND

         On October 25, 2017, an Indictment charged defendant Gustavo Sanchez, in Count 1, with receipt and distribution of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252(a)(2) and 2252(b)(1), and, in Count 2, with possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(5)(B) and 2252A(b)(2). Sanchez initially pleaded not guilty to the charges, but on April 24, 2018, he entered a notice of his intention to plead guilty in this case.

         On May 7, 2018, Sanchez appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney and entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment pursuant to a plea agreement, a copy of which was entered into evidence, providing for dismissal of Count 2 at sentencing. On May 8, 2018, Judge Mahoney filed a Report And Recommendation that Sanchez's guilty plea be accepted, and on May 10, 2018, she filed an Amended Report And Recommendation making the same recommendation.

         No party filed objections to the Report And Recommendation by the deadline of May 24, 2018. Consequently, I now undertake the necessary review of Judge Mahoney's recommendation to accept Sanchez's guilty plea in this case.

         II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS

         A district judge must review a magistrate judge's Report And Recommendation 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 a Report and Recommendation, the district judge must undertake a de novo review of that portion.

         On the other hand, any portion of a Report and Recommendation 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)).

         A district judge may elect to review a Report and Recommendation under a more-exacting standard even if no objections are filed:

Any party who 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. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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