Reported / Citable
Background
This document is a Report and Recommendation from a U.S. Magistrate Judge regarding the guilty plea of defendant Daisy Marlen Mancia-Valderramos. The defendant appeared before the court on July 21, 2026, and, after being admonished as required by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, pleaded guilty to the Indictment charging her with Illegal Re-Entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
The plea was entered before the Magistrate Judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding United States District Judge. The report details the Magistrate Judge’s findings confirming the voluntariness and informed nature of the defendant’s plea.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge made several findings based on the plea hearing. These findings affirm that the defendant consented to the plea, fully understood the oath, the right to a “not guilty” plea and jury trial, the right to counsel, and the rights associated with a trial (confrontation, cross-examination, protection from self-incrimination, testifying, and compelling witnesses). The defendant also understood that by pleading guilty, there would be no trial.
Crucially, the Magistrate Judge found that the defendant fully understood the nature of the charge, its immigration consequences, and the maximum possible penalties, including imprisonment, fines, supervised release, forfeiture, and restitution. The defendant also acknowledged understanding the court’s obligation to impose a special assessment and that the sentencing court would consider advisory Sentencing Guidelines and the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Concluding that the plea was not induced by promises or threats, that the defendant is competent, and that the plea was made freely, knowingly, and voluntarily with a factual basis, the Magistrate Judge recommended to the district judge that the defendant’s guilty plea be accepted and a judgment of guilt be entered.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant can consent to enter a guilty plea before a Magistrate Judge, with final approval and sentencing reserved for a District Judge.
- Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates that defendants be thoroughly admonished to ensure they understand the rights they are waiving and the consequences of a guilty plea.
- Defendants must be fully informed of the charge’s nature, immigration implications, maximum potential penalties, and the advisory role of Sentencing Guidelines.
- A guilty plea must be free, knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis to be accepted.
- Failure to file written objections to a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation before sentencing may preclude de novo determination by the District Judge and appellate review of factual findings accepted or adopted by the District Judge.
Why It Matters
This Report and Recommendation illustrates the procedural rigor involved in accepting guilty pleas within the federal judicial system, particularly in cases involving illegal re-entry. It underscores the critical role of Magistrate Judges in conducting comprehensive plea hearings, ensuring that defendants are fully aware of their rights and the ramifications of their decisions before a guilty plea is formalized.
For attorneys, this opinion serves as a reminder of the detailed process and the strict adherence to due process required under Rule 11. It also highlights the significance of the “Notice” section, which warns against waiving appellate review or de novo determination by the district judge if objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings are not timely filed. This can be crucial for preserving a client’s rights on appeal.