Order Accepting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation — Lazaro Ramon Leyva Santiesteban

Summary

An order in United States v. Lazaro Ramon Leyva Santiesteban, No. 24-CR-3013-LTS-KEM, Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM, Document 200, filed 09/26/24, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, accepting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding the defendant's guilty plea. The order notes that the magistrate judge recommended that the guilty plea be accepted. It notes that no objections to the R&R were filed and accepts the report and recommendation and the guilty plea. The order is signed by United States District Judge Leonard T. Strand.

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

Full text

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                Plaintiff,                               No. CR24-3013-LTS
vs.                                            ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE
                                                   JUDGE’S REPORT AND
LAZARO RAMON LEYVA
                                               RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
SANTIESTEBAN,
                                                 DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA
                Defendant.
                                 ____________________

                                   I. BACKGROUND

        On June 5, 2024, defendant was charged in Counts 1-3, 10-11, and 29 of a twenty-
nine count superseding indictment. On September 9, 2024, defendant appeared before
the Honorable Kelly K.E. Mahoney, United States Magistrate Judge, and entered a plea
of guilty to Counts 1 and 11 of the superseding indictment. On September 10, 2024,
Judge Mahoney filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which she recommended
that defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. Doc. 195. No objections to the R&R were
filed. I therefore undertake the necessary review of Judge Mahoney’s recommendation
to accept defendant’s plea 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



      Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM       Document 200      Filed 09/26/24    Page 1 of 3
       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).


                                    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 plea of guilty in this case as to Counts 1 and
11 of the superseding indictment.
                                             2




    Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM         Document 200      Filed 09/26/24    Page 2 of 3
  IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of September, 2024.




                               __________________________
                               Leonard T. Strand
                               United States District Judge




                                  3




Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM   Document 200   Filed 09/26/24    Page 3 of 3


File and source

File

uscourts-iand-3-24-cr-03013-7-pdf_81b01b53da02fffb.pdf

Size

209,589 bytes

SHA-256

5cc6e2dc505204599b0956a566fe7365201108494f9392702acd59e1065702e1

Our copy

uscourts-iand-3-24-cr-03013-7-pdf_81b01b53da02fffb.pdf

Original

www.govinfo.gov