Reported / Citable
Background
Lorenzo Ciprian-Alonzo was charged in a one-count indictment with illegal re-entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On July 7, 2026, the defendant appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda and entered a plea of guilty to the charge. The defendant had been advised of his right to counsel and his constitutional rights in connection with the plea.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge conducted a Rule 11 colloquy to ensure the defendant understood his rights, the nature of the charge, the maximum penalties (including mandatory minimums), immigration consequences, and the advisory nature of sentencing guidelines. The magistrate found that the defendant was competent, that his plea was entered freely, knowingly, and voluntarily without threats or promises, and that a factual basis existed to support the guilty plea.
Based on these findings, the magistrate recommended to the presiding district judge that the guilty plea be accepted and a judgment of guilt be entered. The recommendation is subject to final approval and sentencing by the United States District Judge.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)
- Magistrate verified defendant’s understanding of constitutional rights, charge elements, penalties, and immigration consequences before accepting plea
- Plea deemed voluntary, competent, and supported by factual basis; recommendation pending district judge’s final approval and sentencing
Why It Matters
This is a procedural criminal matter documenting the acceptance of a guilty plea at the magistrate level. The case is now awaiting final approval by the presiding district judge and subsequent sentencing. Illegal re-entry charges under § 1326(a) are serious federal crimes that carry mandatory minimum sentences and significant immigration consequences, making the Rule 11 colloquy findings particularly important to establish a valid waiver of trial rights.