United States v. Jose Francisco Reyna-Tapia, AKA Jose Reyna
- Decided
- May 9, 2003
- Docket
- 01-10415
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,140 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the court must review de novo magistrate’s findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but not otherwise” — Johnson v. Peters (2019)
- stating that a “district judge must 24 review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 25 otherwise” — Saintal-Bowman v. 8th Judicial District Court (2025)
- stating that a “district judge must 3 review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not 4 otherwise” — (untitled) (2025)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
OPINION SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge:
“Congress intended magistrates to play an integral and important role in the federal judicial system.”
Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923, 928, 111 S.Ct. 2661, 115 L.Ed.2d 808 (1991). We write to clarify the important role that magistrate judges play in conducting plea colloquies pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. We hold that Rule 11 plea colloquies involving felonies are additional duties that may be delegated to magistrate judges for findings and recommendation with defendants’ consent, and that de novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.
Statutes cited
- 8 U.S.C. § 1326
- 8 U.S.C. § 1101
- 28 U.S.C. § 631-39
- 28 U.S.C. § 636
- 28 U.S.C. § 686
Cite this
United States v. Jose Francisco Reyna-Tapia, AKA Jose Reyna, 328 F.3d 1114 (2003)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.