Reported / Citable
Background
Carlos Francisco Pineda-Ramirez was charged in Count One of an indictment with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
Pineda-Ramirez and his counsel appeared before a magistrate judge on July 7, 2026. After receiving the admonishments required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, he pleaded guilty to the charge and consented to entering the plea before a magistrate judge, subject to the district judge’s final approval and sentencing.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Pineda-Ramirez was competent and that his guilty plea was free, knowing, and voluntary. The judge also found that Pineda-Ramirez understood the charge, his trial rights, the immigration consequences of pleading guilty, the potential penalties, and the advisory role of the Sentencing Guidelines.
The magistrate judge further found that the plea was not induced by promises, threats, or force and that a factual basis supported it. Based on those findings, the judge recommended that the district judge accept the plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling is a report and recommendation, not a final acceptance of the guilty plea or a sentencing decision.
- The magistrate judge found that the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied and that the plea was knowing and voluntary.
- The district judge retains responsibility for final approval of the plea, entry of judgment, and sentencing.
Why It Matters
The report documents the procedural safeguards required before a federal court may accept a guilty plea. It also confirms that Pineda-Ramirez was advised of the plea’s immigration consequences and understood that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory.
The parties were warned that failing to object before sentencing could limit district-court review and bar appellate review of factual findings later accepted or adopted by the district judge.