Reported / Citable
Background
Emiliano Aparicio-Perez was charged with one count: illegal re-entry into the United States in violation of federal law. The case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for intake of the guilty plea under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), with sentencing to follow before the district judge. Aparicio-Perez appeared before the Magistrate Judge on June 11, 2026, with counsel present.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge recommended that Aparicio-Perez’s guilty plea to Count One be ACCEPTED and that a judgment of guilt be entered. The magistrate made eight findings: the defendant consented to the plea being taken by the magistrate (with sentencing by the district judge); he understood the charges and penalties; he knowingly waived his constitutional and statutory rights; he pled guilty without a plea agreement; his plea was free and voluntary; he was competent to enter the plea; there was sufficient factual basis for it; and he may be subject to restitution.
The case is referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing. Any party may file written objections within 14 days of receiving this recommendation; failure to object waives de novo review and bars appeal except on plain error grounds.
Key Takeaways
- Aparicio-Perez pled guilty to illegal re-entry without a formal plea agreement
- The plea was taken following Rule 11 advisements ensuring knowing and voluntary waiver of rights
- The magistrate found sufficient factual basis and defendant competency
- Sentencing remains pending before the district judge; this recommendation is subject to objection
Why It Matters
Illegal re-entry prosecutions are routine in border districts but this case illustrates the Rule 11 procedural safeguards courts must follow when accepting guilty pleas. The magistrate’s detailed findings on knowing waiver, voluntariness, and competency protect the plea against later collateral challenge. With no negotiated plea agreement, the defendant proceeds directly to sentencing at the discretion of the district judge, who may impose substantial penalties for re-entry offenses, particularly repeat offenders.