Filed: Jun. 17, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2016
Summary: ORDER CONCERNING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S RULE 11(c)(1)(C) GUILTY PLEA LEONARD T. STRAND , District Judge . This matter is before me on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which the Honorable C.J. Williams, United States Magistrate Judge, recommends that I accept defendant's plea of guilty. See Doc. No. 28. I. BACKGROUND On December 16, 2015, defendant was charged in a one-count indictment (Doc. No. 2) with escape from custody in violation of
Summary: ORDER CONCERNING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S RULE 11(c)(1)(C) GUILTY PLEA LEONARD T. STRAND , District Judge . This matter is before me on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which the Honorable C.J. Williams, United States Magistrate Judge, recommends that I accept defendant's plea of guilty. See Doc. No. 28. I. BACKGROUND On December 16, 2015, defendant was charged in a one-count indictment (Doc. No. 2) with escape from custody in violation of 1..
More
ORDER CONCERNING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DEFENDANT'S RULE 11(c)(1)(C) GUILTY PLEA
LEONARD T. STRAND, District Judge.
This matter is before me on a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which the Honorable C.J. Williams, United States Magistrate Judge, recommends that I accept defendant's plea of guilty. See Doc. No. 28.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 16, 2015, defendant was charged in a one-count indictment (Doc. No. 2) with escape from custody in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). On June 16, 2016, defendant appeared before Judge Williams and changed her plea to guilty under a binding plea agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). In the plea agreement, the parties have stipulated to a sentence of a term of imprisonment of 46 months, which sentence would be ordered to run concurrent with the sentence to be imposed as a result of the revocation of her supervised release in case CR12-4117-LTS. Judge Williams filed the R&R on June 17, 2016. The parties have waived the right to object to the R&R and have consented to its acceptance. See Doc. No. 29.
II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS
A district judge must review a magistrate judge's R&R 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. Civ. P. 72(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 to Count 1 of the indictment. However, I will not decide at this time whether to accept the parties' Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement and the agreed upon sentence in that plea agreement. Instead, I will make that determination at the end of the sentencing hearing in this case. If I decide not to accept the terms of the parties' plea agreement, defendant will be given the opportunity to either (a) withdraw her guilty plea or (b) not withdraw her guilty plea and proceed with sentencing. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(5).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
