Reported / Citable
Background
On June 18, 2026, Jefry Josue Mejia-Carcamo appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova in the Western District of Texas to enter a guilty plea. The defendant was charged with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, a felony that carries mandatory minimum penalties.
Before accepting the plea, the magistrate advised the defendant of his constitutional rights, including the right to have the plea taken by the District Judge, the right to trial, and the right to counsel. The defendant, represented by counsel and acting without any plea agreement, consented to the magistrate taking his guilty plea and confirmed his understanding of the charges and potential penalties.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge found that the defendant’s guilty plea to Count One was entered freely and voluntarily after the defendant fully understood his constitutional and statutory rights and knowingly waived them. The court determined that the defendant was competent to enter the plea and that there was a sufficient factual basis supporting the guilty plea.
Based on these findings, the magistrate recommended that the guilty plea be accepted and that a judgment of guilt be entered against the defendant. The case was then referred to United States District Judge Ernest Gonzalez for sentencing, which remains pending.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea agreement
- All Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 requirements were satisfied: knowing and voluntary waiver of rights and sufficient factual basis for the plea
- Sentencing will be conducted by the District Judge; penalties may include imprisonment and potential restitution obligations
Why It Matters
Illegal reentry prosecutions are among the most common federal crimes, particularly in border jurisdictions like the Western District of Texas. These cases carry statutory mandatory minimums and illustrate the routine enforcement of immigration law in federal courts.
For practitioners, this proceeding demonstrates the magistrate judge’s gatekeeping function under Rule 11, ensuring that guilty pleas meet constitutional standards before sentencing proceeds.