From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Nimocks

United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division
Apr 20, 2011
CR 11-2-M-DWM (D. Mont. Apr. 20, 2011)

Opinion

CR 11-2-M-DWM.

April 20, 2011


ORDER


United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered Findings and Recommendation in this matter on March 31, 2011. 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 Patrick Charles Nimocks' guilty plea after Nimocks appeared before him pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered his plea of guilty to one count of viewing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2522(a)(5), as set forth in the superseding information.

I find no clear error in Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation (dkt # 28), 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 HEREBY ORDERED that Patrick Charles Nimocks' motion to change plea (dkt #16) is GRANTED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Nimocks

United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division
Apr 20, 2011
CR 11-2-M-DWM (D. Mont. Apr. 20, 2011)
Case details for

U.S. v. Nimocks

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK CHARLES NIMOCKS, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Montana, Missoula Division

Date published: Apr 20, 2011

Citations

CR 11-2-M-DWM (D. Mont. Apr. 20, 2011)

Citing Cases

United States v. Harris

However, the failure of counsel to accurately predict the final guidelines range of a defendant is not…

People v. McDonald

Here, while trial counsel's affidavit in support of defendant's posttrial motion established that he…