Reported / Citable
Background
Graciela Del Rosario Hernandez-Ortega was charged in the Western District of Texas with violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), which prohibits illegal re-entry into the United States. The defendant and her counsel appeared before Magistrate Judge Miguel A. Torres on July 8, 2026, and entered into a plea agreement with the government.
The defendant was fully advised of her constitutional rights, including the right to plead not guilty, demand a jury trial, confront witnesses, and appeal any conviction. She was also informed of the consequences of her plea, including potential immigration consequences and mandatory minimum and maximum penalties applicable to the charge.
The Court’s Holding
Following a Rule 11 colloquy, Magistrate Judge Torres made 14 detailed findings that the defendant’s guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The judge confirmed the defendant understood the nature of the charge, her waiver of trial rights, the advisory nature of sentencing guidelines, and the specific terms of the plea agreement—including her waiver of appellate rights.
The magistrate judge also specifically found that the defendant acknowledged defense counsel’s explanation of the immigration consequences of the plea and that the plea was not induced by promises outside the agreement or by threats or coercion. Based on these findings, the magistrate judge recommended to the district judge that the guilty plea be accepted and a judgment of guilt be entered.
Key Takeaways
- The defendant entered a guilty plea to illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) pursuant to a written plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge confirmed the defendant was fully advised of her constitutional rights, the penalties, and immigration consequences before accepting the plea.
- By the plea agreement, the defendant waived her right to appeal the conviction and sentence unless the court departs from sentencing recommendations contained in the agreement.
- The recommendation goes to the district judge for final approval and sentencing.
Why It Matters
This decision reflects standard criminal procedure in illegal re-entry cases, which are among the most common federal prosecutions. The thorough Rule 11 colloquy and magistrate judge findings protect the defendant’s constitutional rights and create a record to defend against later claims that the plea was involuntary or unknowing.
For defendants and practitioners, the case underscores the importance of plea agreements in immigration cases, where collateral consequences—particularly deportation—are severe and must be explicitly discussed before entry of a guilty plea.