Reported / Citable
Background
Hector Eliuth Celestino-De La Cruz was charged with illegal re-entry into the United States. On June 11, 2026, he appeared before Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters along with his counsel. Prior to accepting the plea, the magistrate judge advised the defendant of his rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and confirmed that the defendant understood those rights.
The defendant, with counsel’s advice, consented to have his felony guilty plea accepted by the magistrate judge rather than proceeding before the district judge. The magistrate judge emphasized that sentencing would be conducted by the presiding U.S. District Judge at a later date.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that the defendant understood the nature of the charges and applicable penalties, understood his constitutional and statutory rights, and freely and voluntarily waived those rights. The plea to Count One (illegal re-entry) was entered without any plea agreement.
The court determined the defendant was competent to enter the guilty plea and that sufficient factual basis existed for the plea. Based on these findings, the magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the guilty plea and entry of a judgment of guilt against the defendant. The defendant was advised that restitution may be imposed as part of sentencing.
Key Takeaways
- The defendant pled guilty to illegal re-entry into the United States without a plea agreement
- The magistrate judge found the guilty plea was made freely and voluntarily with full understanding of constitutional rights and the charges
- Sentencing will be determined by the district judge at a subsequent proceeding
- Restitution remains a potential component of the final sentence
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the standard federal procedure for accepting felony guilty pleas in immigration cases. The magistrate judge’s detailed application of Rule 11 protections ensures that guilty pleas are entered knowingly and voluntarily—a critical safeguard for the criminal justice system’s integrity.
For immigration practitioners and defense counsel, this case underscores the importance of thoroughly advising clients on the consequences of guilty pleas in re-entry cases, which carry substantial federal penalties. Compliance with Rule 11’s requirements protects both the defendant’s rights and the finality of guilty plea judgments on appeal.