Order Accepting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation — Yordanis Perez Velazquez

Summary

An order in United States v. Yordanis Perez Velazquez, No. 24-CR-3013-LTS-KEM, Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM, Document 181, filed 07/25/24, 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
                                              RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
 YORDANIS PEREZ VELAZQUEZ,                      DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA
               Defendant.


                                  I. BACKGROUND
       On April 5, 2024, a one-count information was filed against defendant. On July
9, 2024, defendant appeared before the Honorable Kelly K.E. Mahoney, Chief United
States Magistrate Judge, and entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the information. On
July 9, 2024, Judge Mahoney filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which she
recommended that defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. Doc. 175. 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
       receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
       instructions.


   Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM         Document 181      Filed 07/25/24    Page 1 of 3
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 Count 1 of
the information.




    Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM         Document 181      Filed 07/25/24    Page 2 of 3
  IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of July, 2024.




                                __________________________
                                Leonard T. Strand
                                United States District Judge




Case 3:24-cr-03013-LTS-KEM   Document 181   Filed 07/25/24     Page 3 of 3


File and source

File

uscourts-iand-3-24-cr-03013-4-pdf_753163fc22ab0389.pdf

Size

211,521 bytes

SHA-256

9364980203c0c6fbd27b9a45163f4316b3b898c5dfb9a3824bab9f8a1d455317

Our copy

uscourts-iand-3-24-cr-03013-4-pdf_753163fc22ab0389.pdf

Original

www.govinfo.gov