Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

USA v. Carrillo-Cruz — Magistrate Judge recommends accepting guilty plea to illegal re-entry

Reported / Citable

Case
USA v. Kevin Israel Carrillo-Cruz
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division
Date Decided
July 6, 2026
Docket No.
3:26-cr-01449-KC
Topics
Immigration, Criminal Procedure, Guilty Pleas, Illegal Re-Entry
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Kevin Israel Carrillo-Cruz was charged with one count of illegal re-entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The defendant appeared before the magistrate judge on July 6, 2026, and entered into a plea agreement under which he agreed to plead guilty to Count One of the indictment.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Carrillo-Cruz was fully advised of his constitutional rights, including the right to plead not guilty, to a jury trial, to confront witnesses, and to remain silent. The defendant acknowledged understanding the nature of the charges, the maximum penalties, applicable mandatory minimums, and the immigration consequences of his plea.

The magistrate judge concluded that the guilty plea was made freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, and that there is a factual basis to support the plea. The court also found that the defendant understood the terms of the plea agreement, including the waiver of appellate rights, and that counsel had explained the immigration consequences. Based on these findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the plea of guilty and enter a judgment of guilt.

Key Takeaways

  • The defendant entered a guilty plea to illegal re-entry pursuant to a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found the defendant was competent, properly advised, and entered the plea voluntarily.
  • The defendant waived appellate rights as part of the plea agreement.
  • The recommendation is subject to acceptance or rejection by the district judge at sentencing.

Why It Matters

This case illustrates the procedural requirements for guilty pleas in federal criminal cases, particularly the magistrate judge’s role in verifying that a defendant understands his rights and the consequences of his plea. The emphasis on immigration consequences reflects the serious collateral consequences of re-entry convictions for noncitizens.

For immigration practitioners, the case underscores the importance of understanding how criminal convictions affect immigration status and the mandatory nature of certain consequences under federal law.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top