USA v. Lorenzo-Hernandez
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JORGE LORENZO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:26-mj-0002 ) ) ) ) ) ORDER BEFORE THE COURT is the United States’ Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29), filed May 15, 2026. The United States takes issue with the U.S. Magistrate Judge Emile A. Henderson III’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) (ECF No. 24), entered April 20, 2026, wherein Judge Henderson recommends that the United States’ motion to dismiss be granted, but that such dismissal be with prejudice. R&R at 11. The Court conducted a de novo review of the record and has made an independent determination finding no error in the R&R.1 As this Court noted in United States v. Linarez- Lugo, Criminal No. 2025-cr-0006, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27186 (D.V.I. Feb. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_26-mj-00002/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_26-mj-00002-1.pdf
SHA-256 3e5d79eab7914845a6b5e806d1106471c5374911f7a47a9a0b011817d4daccc8
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-3e5d79eab791
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JORGE LORENZO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:26-mj-0002 ) ) ) ) ) ORDER BEFORE THE COURT is the United States’ Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 29), filed May 15, 2026. The United States takes issue with the U.S. Magistrate Judge Emile A. Henderson III’s Report and Recommendation (R&R) (ECF No. 24), entered April 20, 2026, wherein Judge Henderson recommends that the United States’ motion to dismiss be granted, but that such dismissal be with prejudice. R&R at 11. The Court conducted a de novo review of the record and has made an independent determination finding no error in the R&R.1 As this Court noted in United States v. Linarez- Lugo, Criminal No. 2025-cr-0006, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27186 (D.V.I. Feb. 10, 2026), “‘[n]otwithstanding the significant limitations on a court's authority to deny a Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss altogether, a court retains discretion to determine whether a dismissal should be with or without prejudice.’" Id. at *5 (quoting United States v. Adams, 777 F. Supp. 3d 185, 214 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (noting that "the First, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have either affirmed such dismissals [with prejudice under Rule 48] or otherwise endorsed the practice" and that "[n]umerous district courts have dismissed prosecutions with prejudice, even when the government seeks dismissal without it") and citing United States v. Erickson, Case No. 1 See Hill v. Barnacle, 655 F. App’x 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016) (opining that the district court is not required to make separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation de novo under 28 U.SC. § 636(b)) (citing Elmendorf Grafica, Inc. v. D.S. America, Inc., 48 F.3d 46, 49-50 (1st Cir. 1995) (opining that “[28 U.S.C. § 636(b)] authorizes the district court to adopt in whole as well as in part the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. Where, as here, the magistrate judge decided on an undisputed factual record, the district court was certainly not required to rehash the magistrate judge’s reasoning. The role of the magistrate judge is ‘to relieve courts of unnecessary work.’”) (citations omitted))). Case: 1:26-mj-00002-RAM-EAH Document #: 30 Filed: 07/07/26 Page 1 of 2 United States v. Lorenzo-Hernandez Case No. 1:26-mj-0002 Order 3:19-cr-0053-003, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3540 at *16 (D.V.I. Jan. 8, 2024) ("If the defendant successfully rebuts the good faith presumption, the Court may deny the government's motion and dismiss the indictment with prejudice."))). The Court finds that Magistrate Judge Henderson correctly relied upon the opinion in Linarez-Lugo. Despite the United States’ attempt to distinguish the facts in this matter from the facts in Linarez-Lugo, Defendant’s unavailability to proceed to trial is similarly not due to his actions, but due solely to the actions of Plaintiff. Defendant was taken into custody by an arm of the prosecutorial team. This scenario is analogous to a party intentionally destroying evidence or threatening a witness as to make that witness unavailable to testify at trial. Thus, like the Linarez-Lugo court, the Court deems dismissal with prejudice to be appropriate, here. 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27186, at *5. The premises considered, it is hereby ORDERED that the United States’ Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 29, is OVERRULED; it is further ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 24, is APPROVED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court as if fully set forth herein; it is further ORDERED that the Complaint, ECF No. 1, in the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court SHALL remove the case from the Court’s calendar and close the case. Date: July 7, 2026 /s/_Robert A. Molloy_________ ROBERT A. MOLLOY Chief Judge Case: 1:26-mj-00002-RAM-EAH Document #: 30 Filed: 07/07/26 Page 2 of 2