Reported / Citable
Background
Juan Carlos Bautista-Sandoval was charged with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge to take Bautista-Sandoval’s felony guilty plea.
At the July 2, 2026 hearing, Bautista-Sandoval appeared with counsel and consented to have the magistrate judge take his plea. After receiving the required Rule 11 admonishments, he pleaded guilty to Count One without a plea agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Bautista-Sandoval understood the charge, potential penalties, and the constitutional and statutory rights he was waiving. The judge also found that the plea was knowing and voluntary, that Bautista-Sandoval was competent, and that a sufficient factual basis supported the plea.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge found Bautista-Sandoval guilty and recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation left sentencing to the presiding district judge and advised the parties that objections were due within 14 days.
Key Takeaways
- Bautista-Sandoval pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11 and was supported by a sufficient factual basis.
- The filing is a recommendation to accept the plea, not a sentencing decision; sentencing remains before the district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents the procedural safeguards required before acceptance of a felony guilty plea, including competency, voluntariness, understanding of the charge and penalties, waiver of rights, and a sufficient factual basis.
It also preserves the distinction between a magistrate judge’s role in taking the plea by consent and the district judge’s authority to accept the recommendation, enter judgment, and impose sentence.