Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. AUSTIN DAVID LAWRENCE, Defendant.

Dana L. Christensen

ORDER

United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered Findings and Recommendation in this matter on June 12, 2014. Neither party objected and therefore they are not entitled to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). This Court will review the Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000).

Judge Lynch recommended this Court accept Austin David Lawrence's guilty plea after Lawrence appeared before him pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered his plea of guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 846 (Count I), as set forth in the Indictment. In exchange for Defendant's plea, the United States has agreed to dismiss Counts II through V of the Indictment.

I find no clear error in Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 19), and I adopt them in full, including the recommendation to defer acceptance of the Plea Agreement until sentencing when the Court will have reviewed the Plea Agreement and Presentence Investigation Report.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Austin David Lawrence's motion to change plea (Doc. 13) is GRANTED and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of Count I as charged in the Indictment.

__________


Dana L. Christensen, Chief District Judge


United States District Court


Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

United States v. Lawrence
(Jul 1, 2014)