Reported / Citable
Background
Andrea Hernandez Castro was charged with one count of illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. On June 18, 2026, the defendant appeared before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova with counsel to enter a guilty plea. The magistrate advised the defendant of her rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and confirmed her understanding of the nature and consequences of her plea.
The defendant consented to having her plea taken by the magistrate judge rather than the district judge, and she proceeded without a plea agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy and made the following findings: the defendant understood the charges and penalties; she understood and voluntarily waived her constitutional and statutory rights; her plea was freely and voluntarily given; she was competent to enter the plea; and there was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea.
Based on these findings, the magistrate judge found the defendant guilty of Count One and recommended that the guilty plea be accepted and a judgment of guilt be entered. The magistrate specifically noted that the defendant may be subject to restitution. The case was then referred to the presiding United States District Judge (Ernest Gonzalez) for sentencing.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate found the guilty plea valid under Rule 11 after confirming voluntary and knowing waiver of rights.
- The defendant had legal counsel present and made no plea agreement with the government.
- Sentencing authority remains with the district judge.
- The defendant is subject to potential restitution obligations.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the procedural safeguards applied in federal criminal cases involving guilty pleas, particularly in immigration crimes. The magistrate’s detailed findings ensure that a Rule 11 violation cannot later be claimed on appeal or in post-conviction proceedings—critical protections for both the integrity of the plea and the defendant’s appellate rights. The failure to object within 14 days bars de novo review of the magistrate’s recommendations and limits appellate challenges to plain error.