Order Accepting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation Regarding Defendant’s Guilty Plea — United States v. Mendenhall (Dkt. 63, N.D. Iowa)

Summary

An order accepting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding the defendant's guilty plea in United States of America v. Stephanie A. Mendenhall, No. CR21-3028-LTS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Central Division. It recites that a five-count superseding indictment was filed on March 8, 2022, that on March 24, 2022 the defendant pleaded guilty to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 before Chief United States Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney, and that the report recommending acceptance (Doc. 59) drew no objection because the parties waived the right to object (Doc. 62). After setting out the standard of review, the order accepts the report and the guilty pleas.

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
                             CENTRAL DIVISION

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
               Plaintiff,                               No. CR21-3028-LTS
 vs.                                          ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE
                                                  JUDGE’S REPORT AND
 STEPHANIE A. MENDENHALL,                     RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
               Defendant.                       DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA


                                  I. BACKGROUND
       On March 8, 2022, a five-count superseding indictment was filed against
defendant. On March 24, 2022, defendant appeared before the Honorable Kelly K.E.
Mahoney, Chief United States Magistrate Judge, and entered a plea of guilty to Counts
1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the superseding indictment. On the same day, Judge Mahoney filed
a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which she recommended that defendant’s guilty
pleas be accepted. Doc. 59. The parties have waived the right to object to the R&R and
have consented to its acceptance. Doc. 62. 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




       Case 3:21-cr-03028-LTS-KEM Document 63 Filed 03/24/22 Page 1 of 3

       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




      Case 3:21-cr-03028-LTS-KEM Document 63 Filed 03/24/22 Page 2 of 3

without modification and accept defendant’s pleas of guilty in this case as to Counts 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5 of the superseding indictment.1
       The jury trial of this case, currently scheduled to begin on March 28, 2022 (with
jury selection scheduled to take place on March 25, 2022), is stricken and the pretrial
conferences scheduled for the mornings of March 25, 2022, and March 28, 2022, are
cancelled.


       IT IS SO ORDERED.
       DATED this 24th day of March, 2022.




                                            __________________________
                                            Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge




1
  United States v. Cortez-Hernandez, 673 F. App’x 587 (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. 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.




      Case 3:21-cr-03028-LTS-KEM Document 63 Filed 03/24/22 Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.iand.59861.63.0.pdf

Size

362,385 bytes

SHA-256

ebefbd9d106930134946f5590a1832dcf6a4d8a6d08571c6ab6b5bc9532443e1

Our copy

gov.uscourts.iand.59861.63.0.pdf

Original

archive.org