Reported / Citable
Background
Jordy Hernan Suazo-Alfaro was charged in the Western District of Texas with illegal re-entry into the United States. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters for taking the defendant’s felony guilty plea.
On June 11, 2026, Suazo-Alfaro appeared in open court with counsel before Magistrate Judge Watters. The magistrate judge advised the defendant of his right to have the plea taken by the district judge and provided the admonitions required under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge made findings that Suazo-Alfaro understood the nature of the charges and penalties, understood his constitutional and statutory rights, and freely and voluntarily waived those rights. The defendant pled guilty to Count One—illegal re-entry into the United States—without a plea agreement.
The magistrate judge found that the guilty plea was made freely and voluntarily, that the defendant was competent to enter the plea, and that sufficient factual basis existed for the plea. Based on these findings, the magistrate recommended that the defendant’s guilty plea be accepted and a judgment of guilt be entered.
The case was referred to Chief Judge Alia Moses for sentencing. The magistrate judge also noted that the defendant may be subject to restitution.
Key Takeaways
- Guilty plea accepted to illegal re-entry charge after magistrate judge found the plea made knowingly, voluntarily, and with adequate factual basis
- Defendant waived all constitutional and statutory rights and understood the penalties
- No plea agreement was negotiated in this case
- Sentencing remains pending before the district judge
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the federal court’s structured approach to felony guilty pleas in immigration cases, ensuring that due process protections are afforded to defendants before accepting admission of guilt. The magistrate’s thorough documentation of the defendant’s understanding and voluntary waiver of rights provides a record that should withstand appellate scrutiny.
The case underscores the continuing federal enforcement of illegal re-entry offenses and the procedural safeguards required under Rule 11 to ensure guilty pleas are constitutional and reliable.