Reported / Citable
Background
Francisco David Nunez-Cordova was charged with illegal re-entry into the United States under Count One of an indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters for the taking of a felony guilty plea pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).
On June 11, 2026, the defendant appeared before the magistrate judge with counsel. The defendant was informed of his right to have his plea taken by the district judge and was admonished pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Watters made findings that the defendant, with advice of counsel, consented to the magistrate taking his guilty plea and understood the nature of the charges and penalties. The magistrate found that the defendant understood his constitutional and statutory rights, freely and voluntarily waived them, and made his guilty plea without a plea agreement.
The magistrate determined that the defendant’s plea was made freely and voluntarily, that the defendant was competent to enter the plea, and that there was sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea. The magistrate therefore found the defendant guilty of illegal re-entry into the United States. Sentencing was reserved for the presiding district judge.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pled guilty to illegal re-entry without a plea agreement
- Magistrate found the plea was voluntary and knowing, made after proper admonishment of rights
- Defendant acknowledged potential liability for restitution
- District judge retained authority over sentencing
Why It Matters
This case reflects the standard magistrate procedure for accepting felony guilty pleas in immigration-related criminal prosecutions. The record demonstrates strict compliance with Rule 11 safeguards, ensuring the defendant understood the nature of the charges, his rights, and the consequences of his plea before entry of judgment.
Parties have 14 days from receipt to file objections to the magistrate’s recommendation; failure to object bars de novo review by the district court and limits appellate challenge to plain error review.