United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division
ORDER REGARDING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING DEFENDANT'S GUILTY
W. BENNETT, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
March 21, 2018, an Indictment charged defendant Andrea Maye
Beerman with five drug-trafficking offenses involving
methamphetamine, consisting of conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine (Count 1), distribution of methamphetamine
(Counts 2 through 4), and possession with intent to
distribute methamphetamine (Count 5). Beerman initially
pleaded not guilty to the charge, but on May 31, 2018, she
entered a notice of her intention to plead guilty in this
12, 2018, Beermann appeared before United States Magistrate
Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney and entered a plea of guilty to
Counts 1 and 5 of the Indictment, pursuant to a plea
agreement, a copy of which was entered into evidence. More
specifically, Count 1 charges that, beginning on or about
October 2017, and continuing to on or about February 27,
2018, having previously been convicted of at least one felony
drug offense, Beermann conspired to distribute 500 grams or
more of a methamphetamine mixture containing 50 grams or more
of actual (pure) methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and 851. Count 5
charges that, on or about February 27, 2018, having
previously been convicted of at least one felony drug
offense, Beermann possessed with intent to distribute 5 grams
or more of actual (pure) methamphetamine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 851. On June
14, 2018, Judge Mahoney filed a Report And Recommendation
that Beermann's guilty plea be accepted.
party filed objections to the Report And Recommendation by
the deadline of June 28, 2018. Consequently, I now undertake
the necessary review of Judge Mahoney's recommendation to
accept Beermann's guilty plea in this case.
district judge must review a magistrate judge's Report
And Recommendation in a criminal case under the following
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.
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)).
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).