Source: http://ia.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20130628_0000436.NIA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-16 17:17:23
Document Index: 499358168

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 841']

| United States v. Gailey
United States v. Gailey
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,v.TIM GAILEY, Defendant.
In a Second Superseding Indictment returned on May 23, 2013, defendant Tim Gailey is charged with conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more methamphetamine which contained 50 grams or more of pure methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, distributing 9.9 grams or more of pure methamphetamine, within 1, 000 feet of a school or playground, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 860(a), distributing 7.13 grams or more of pure methamphetamine, within 1, 000 feet of a school or playground, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 860(a), and distributing 17.5 grams or more of pure methamphetamine, within 1, 000 feet of a school or playground, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 860(a), distributing 26.1 grams of a methamphetamine mixture containing 12.03 grams of pure methamphetamine, within 1, 000 feet of a school or playground, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and 860(a), and possessing with intent to distribute 102.72 grams of a methamphetamine mixture containing 50 grams or more of pure methamphetamine, within 1, 000 feet of a school or playground, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 860(a). On June 28, 2013, defendant appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Leonard T. Strand and entered a plea of guilty to Counts 1 and 10 of the Second Superseding Indictment. On this same date, Judge Strand filed a Report and Recommendation in which he recommends that defendant's guilty plea be accepted. No objections to Judge Strand's Report and Recommendation were filed.[1] The court, therefore, undertakes the necessary review of Judge Strand's recommendation to accept defendant's plea in this case.
In this case, no objections have been filed. As a result, the court has reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation under a clearly erroneous standard of review. See Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (noting when no objections are filed and the time for filing objections has expired, "[the district court judge] would only have to review the findings of the magistrate judge for clear error"); Taylor v. Farrier, 910 F.2d 518, 520 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting the advisory committee's note to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) indicates "when no timely objection is filed the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record"). After conducting its review, the court is not "left with [a] definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed, '" and finds no reason to reject or modify the magistrate judge's recommendation. 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)). Therefore, the court accepts Judge Strand's Report and Recommendation and accepts defendant's plea of guilty in this case to Counts 1 and 10 of the Second Superseding Indictment.