Order Accepting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation Regarding Defendant’s Guilty Pleas — United States v. Seuntjens (Dkt. 65, N.D. Iowa)

Summary

In this order of October 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge Leonard T. Strand of the Northern District of Iowa accepts Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Kelly K.E. Mahoney's Report and Recommendation and the guilty pleas of Tanner James Seuntjens (captioned also as d/b/a Seuntjens Pork, LLC). Entered before Judge Mahoney on September 19, 2025, the pleas are to Counts 1, 26 and 30 of the 30-count superseding indictment filed May 21, 2025 in Case No. CR25-4026, and to Count 1 of the one-count information filed September 15, 2025 in Case No. CR25-4052. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed, so the court reviewed it for clear error and accepted it without modification. This copy is Document 65 on the docket of Case 5:25-cr-04026, the superseding-indictment case.

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
                            WESTERN DIVISION



 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
               Plaintiff,                           No. CR25-4026-LTS-KEM
                                                        CR25-4052-LTS-KEM
 vs.                                         ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE
                                                 JUDGE’S REPORT AND
                                             RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
 TANNER JAMES SEUNTJENS, a/k/a                DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEAS
 Tanner Seuntjens, a/k/a Tanner J.
 Seuntjens, d/b/a Seuntjens Pork, LLC,
               Defendants.


                                  I. BACKGROUND
        On May 21, 2025, a 30-count superseding indictment was filed against defendant
in Case No. CR25-4026-LTS. On September 15, 2025, a one-count information was filed
against defendant in Case No. CR25-4052-LTS. On September 19, 2025, defendant
appeared before the Honorable Kelly K.E. Mahoney, Chief United States Magistrate
Judge, and entered a plea of guilty to Counts 1, 26 and 30 of the superseding indictment
(Case CR25-4026) and Count 1 of the information (Case CR25-4052). On September
19, 2025, Judge Mahoney filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which she
recommended that defendant’s guilty pleas be accepted. Doc. 63 in CR25-4026-LTS and
Doc. 13 in CR25-4052-LTS. No objections to the R&R were filed. I therefore undertake
the necessary review of Judge Mahoney’s recommendation to accept defendant’s pleas in
these cases.




       Case 5:25-cr-04026-LTS-KEM     Document 65     Filed 10/06/25   Page 1 of 3

                            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 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).
                                             2



    Case 5:25-cr-04026-LTS-KEM         Document 65       Filed 10/06/25    Page 2 of 3

                                  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
without modification and accept defendant’s pleas of guilty as to Counts 1, 26 and 30 of
the superseding indictment (Case CR25-4026) and Count 1 of the information (Case
CR25-4052).


      IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2025.




                                        __________________________
                                        Leonard T. Strand
                                        United States District Judge




                                           3



    Case 5:25-cr-04026-LTS-KEM        Document 65     Filed 10/06/25    Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

65.pdf

Size

118,299 bytes

SHA-256

6c1ec20138e617b1671225017bd8c13bc4b99fc65ddeba19215ccacc3b9a26b6

Our copy

65.pdf