Order Accepting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation — Maikel Sanchez Garcia

Summary

An order in United States v. Maikel Sanchez Garcia, No. 24-CR-3013-LTS-KEM, Document 236, filed 11/13/24, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, accepting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation on the defendant's guilty plea to Counts 7 and 20 of the superseding indictment. It notes that on October 28, 2024 Judge Mahoney recommended that the plea be accepted (Doc. 226) and that no objections to the R&R were filed. The order accepts the report and recommendation and the guilty plea. It is ordered this 13th day of November, 2024 and 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
                                              RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
 MAIKEL SANCHEZ GARCIA,                         DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA
               Defendant.


                                   I. BACKGROUND
       On June 5, 2024, defendant was charged in Counts 7, 20 and 21 of a twenty-nine-
count superseding indictment. On October 28, 2024, defendant appeared before the
Honorable Kelly K.E. Mahoney, Chief United States Magistrate Judge, and entered a
plea of guilty to Counts 7 and 20 of the superseding indictment. On October 28, 2024,
Judge Mahoney filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which she recommended
that defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. Doc. 226. 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
       recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also



    Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM         Document 236     Filed 11/13/24    Page 1 of 3
       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 7 and
20 of the superseding indictment.

                                             2




    Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM         Document 236      Filed 11/13/24    Page 2 of 3
  IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of November, 2024.




                               __________________________
                               Leonard T. Strand
                               United States District Judge




                                 3




Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM   Document 236   Filed 11/13/24    Page 3 of 3


File and source

File

uscourts-iand-3-24-cr-03013-9-pdf_e362235ab1774187.pdf

Size

211,561 bytes

SHA-256

acfc0a3ba21030ddf4f67a4964fde94e06ade294c196f8b44e1f849cb807ccaf

Our copy

uscourts-iand-3-24-cr-03013-9-pdf_e362235ab1774187.pdf

Original

www.govinfo.gov