Reported / Citable
Background
Hilder Lainez-Alvarez was charged with illegal re-entry into the United States under Count One of an indictment. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) for the taking of the defendant’s felony guilty plea, with sentencing to be conducted by the presiding District Judge.
On June 11, 2026, the defendant and his counsel appeared before the magistrate judge in open court. The magistrate judge addressed the defendant personally and admonished him regarding his constitutional rights pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that the defendant, with advice of counsel, consented to the magistrate taking his plea and that he fully understood the nature of the charges and penalties. The court found that the defendant understood his constitutional and statutory rights, freely and voluntarily waived them, and entered a guilty plea to Count One without a plea agreement.
The magistrate judge found the defendant’s plea was made freely and voluntarily, that the defendant is competent to enter a guilty plea, and that there is sufficient factual basis for the plea. Based on these findings, the magistrate recommended that the defendant’s guilty plea be accepted and that a judgment of guilt be entered.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pled guilty to illegal re-entry without a plea agreement
- Magistrate judge found all Rule 11 requirements satisfied: knowing and voluntary plea, understanding of charges and rights, competency, and factual basis
- The magistrate’s recommendation is subject to de novo review by the District Judge and objections may be filed within 14 days
- Sentencing remains pending before the District Judge
Why It Matters
This document reflects the routine guilty plea process in illegal re-entry prosecutions, which constitute a significant portion of federal criminal docket in border districts. The magistrate’s detailed findings demonstrate the procedural safeguards required under Rule 11 to ensure guilty pleas are constitutionally valid and voluntary.
The case illustrates the role of magistrate judges in conducting plea proceedings while preserving the District Judge’s authority over sentencing. The recommendation is not final; the District Judge must review and accept or reject the recommendation on a de novo basis.