USA v. Vazquez-Pacheco — Magistrate Judge recommends acceptance of guilty plea to illegal re-entry

Reported / Citable

Background

Rogelio Vazquez-Pacheco was indicted on a charge of illegal re-entry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On June 23, 2026, the defendant appeared before Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda with counsel and entered a guilty plea to the charge.

The Court’s Holding

After conducting a Rule 11 colloquy with the defendant, Magistrate Judge Castaneda made thirteen findings establishing that the guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and factually supported. The court found that Vazquez-Pacheco understood his constitutional rights, including the right to trial, the right to confront witnesses, and the right against self-incrimination. The defendant was advised of the immigration consequences of the plea and the maximum potential penalties, including imprisonment, fines, supervised release, and special assessments.

The magistrate judge recommended that the defendant’s guilty plea be accepted and that a judgment of guilt be entered, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding United States District Judge.

Key Takeaways

• The defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to trial in favor of a guilty plea to illegal re-entry.
• The magistrate judge confirmed that the defendant understood all constitutional rights and the immigration consequences of his plea.
• Sentencing will be imposed by the district judge, who will apply the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Why It Matters

This procedural order demonstrates compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11’s rigorous requirements for guilty pleas. Courts must personally address defendants and confirm they understand the consequences—particularly immigration consequences—before accepting a plea, ensuring due process in criminal proceedings.

Illegal re-entry prosecutions under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) are among the most common federal criminal charges. This case illustrates the importance of Rule 11 colloquies in establishing a factual and legal foundation for sentencing and appeal.