Reported / Citable
Background
Maria Magdalena Acevedo-Morales was charged with one count of Illegal Re-Entry, in violation of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326. She entered into a Plea Agreement with the government and appeared before Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda on July 6, 2026, in the El Paso Division of the Western District of Texas.
At the plea hearing, the defendant and her counsel appeared before the magistrate judge, who conducted a comprehensive Rule 11 plea colloquy to ensure the defendant understood her rights, the charges, and the consequences of her guilty plea.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that the defendant fully understood her constitutional rights, including the right to plead not guilty, to a jury trial, to confront witnesses, and to invoke her Fifth Amendment protections. The court confirmed that the defendant understood the nature of the Illegal Re-Entry charge and specifically that the court had explained the immigration consequences of the plea.
The court found that the defendant’s guilty plea was entered freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, without any coercion, threats, or promises beyond those in the Plea Agreement. The defendant also understood that by pleading guilty, she was waiving her right to appeal or collaterally attack the sentence, except in specified circumstances. The magistrate judge found factual basis for the plea and determined the defendant was competent to enter the plea.
Based on these findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. Final sentencing remains pending before the district judge.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pled guilty to Illegal Re-Entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 pursuant to a Plea Agreement
- All Rule 11 plea colloquy requirements were satisfied, including specific advisement of immigration consequences
- Defendant waived appeal rights as part of the plea agreement, with limited exceptions
- Matter now proceeds to district judge for sentencing determination
Why It Matters
This is a routine but important criminal plea in immigration law. The magistrate judge’s careful adherence to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11’s requirements protects the validity and enforceability of the guilty plea on appeal or in collateral proceedings. The specific notation that the defendant was advised of immigration consequences is significant, as these consequences—including mandatory deportation—often exceed the criminal sentence itself.
For practitioners, this case illustrates the federal judiciary’s emphasis on ensuring that defendants in immigration-related criminal cases fully understand the collateral consequences of their pleas before waiving constitutional rights.