Order Regarding Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation Concerning Defendant’s Guilty Plea — United States v. Hartzell (Dkt. 49, N.D. Iowa)

Summary

An order by United States District Judge C.J. Williams in United States of America v. Heather Sue Hartzell, No. 23-CR-2045 CJW-MAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Eastern Division, dated January 19, 2024. It recites that the defendant, charged in counts 1 and 2 of an August 9, 2023 Indictment, pleaded guilty to count one before Magistrate Judge Mark A. Roberts on December 21, 2023. It states that the defendant objected on December 28, 2023 because the report did not mark the box for dismissal of charges, although the plea agreement provides for dismissal of count 2, and that Judge Roberts filed an amended report. The order accepts the amended report of January 4, 2024 and the guilty plea to count one.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
                             EASTERN DIVISION

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                            No. 23-CR-2045 CJW-MAR
                 Plaintiff,
 vs.                                 ORDER REGARDING MAGISTRATE
                                           JUDGE’S REPORT AND
 HEATHER SUE HARTZELL,
                                            RECOMMENDATION
           Defendant.                  CONCERNING DEFENDANT’S
                                               GUILTY PLEA
                      __________________________

                    I.        INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
       On August 9, 2023, a six-count Indictment was filed against defendant and one
other person. Defendant was charged in counts 1 and 2. On December 21, 2023,
defendant appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Roberts and entered
a plea of guilty to count one of the Indictment. On December 21, 2023, Judge Roberts
filed a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) in which he recommended defendant’s
guilty plea be accepted. On December 28, 2023, defendant filed objections to Judge
Roberts’ R&R on the ground that the box on the R&R regarding “dismissal of charges”
was not marked or checked. Defendant’s plea agreement did include the dismissal of
count 2 at the time of sentencing. The government filed a response essentially agreeing
with defendant’s objection. In light of this, Judge Roberts filed an amended R&R to
reflect that the parties’ plea agreement does call for the dismissal of charges as stated in
the plea agreement. The parties did not file objections to the amended R&R. The
Court, therefore, undertakes the necessary review of Judge Roberts’ recommendation to
accept defendant’s plea in this case.




       Case 6:23-cr-02045-CJW-MAR Document 49 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 3

                                    II.    ANALYSIS
       Under the statute, this Court’s standard of review for a magistrate judge’s R&R 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)(C).
       When parties do not object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
the Court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error.             28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). Similarly, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b) provides for review
of a magistrate judge’s R&R on dispositive motions, where objections are made, as
follows:
       The district judge must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate
       judge’s recommendation. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify
       the recommendation, receive further evidence, or resubmit the matter to the
       magistrate judge with instructions.

FED. R. CRIM. P. 59(b)(3).1
       In this case, the parties filed no objections to the amended R&R, and it appears to
the Court upon review that Judge Roberts’ findings and conclusions are not clearly
erroneous.




1
   United States v. Cortez-Hernandez, 673 F. App’x 587, 590-91 (8th Cir. 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.


      Case 6:23-cr-02045-CJW-MAR Document 49 Filed 01/19/24 Page 2 of 3

      Therefore, the Court ACCEPTS Judge Roberts’ amended R&R of January 4,
2024, and ACCEPTS defendant’s plea of guilty in this case to count one of the
Indictment.
      IT IS SO ORDERED this 19th day of January, 2024.



                                   _________________________
                                   C.J. Williams
                                   United States District Judge
                                   Northern District of Iowa




                                      3

     Case 6:23-cr-02045-CJW-MAR Document 49 Filed 01/19/24 Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.iand.64565.49.0.pdf

Size

77,585 bytes

SHA-256

240e021bf5de835964bb08aa2d4abae25a5bbf9ee5e9e521a071fd9ce7b9090f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.iand.64565.49.0.pdf

Original

archive.org