USA v. Weitzel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, 	No. CR25-4058-LTS-KEM
vs. 	ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE
JUDGE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA	ALLEN CLAIR WEITZEL,
Defendant.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 19, 2025, a two-count indictment was filed against defendant. 	On
September 24, 2026, defendant appeared before the Honorable Kelly K.E. Mahoney,
Chief United States Magistrate Judge, and entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 and the
lesser included offense of Count 2 of the indictment. 	On September 24, 2026, Judge
Mahoney filed a Report and Recommendation (R&R) in which she recommended that
defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. 	Doc. 31. 	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
Case 5:25-cr-04058-LTS-KEM Document 34 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 3

2
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. 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
Case 5:25-cr-04058-LTS-KEM Document 34 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
without modification and accept defendant’s plea of guilty in this case as to Count 1 and
lesser included offense of Count 2 of the indictment.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of October, 2026.
__________________________
Leonard T. Strand
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cr-04058-LTS-KEM Document 34 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 3