Primo-Jimenez — Magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Background

Edwin Ivan Primo-Jimenez was charged with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Under a general referral order, the district court referred the matter to a U.S. magistrate judge to take Primo-Jimenez’s felony guilty plea.

Primo-Jimenez and his counsel appeared before the magistrate judge on June 30, 2026. After being advised that he could have the district judge take his plea, Primo-Jimenez consented to proceed before the magistrate judge and pleaded guilty to Count One without a plea agreement.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Primo-Jimenez understood the charge, potential penalties, and the constitutional and statutory rights he was waiving. The judge also found that Primo-Jimenez was competent, that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and that the plea had a sufficient factual basis.

The magistrate judge found Primo-Jimenez guilty of the charge to which he pleaded and recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The matter was referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing, and the parties were advised that objections to the findings and recommendation were due within 14 days of receipt.

Key Takeaways

• Primo-Jimenez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea agreement.
• The magistrate judge found that the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied and that the plea was supported by an adequate factual basis.
• The recommendation did not impose a sentence; sentencing remained for the presiding district judge.

Why It Matters

The recommendation documents the procedural safeguards required before a federal felony guilty plea may be accepted, including confirmation of the defendant’s competence, understanding, voluntariness, and waiver of rights.

It also underscores the limited role of the magistrate judge in this proceeding: taking the plea with the defendant’s consent and recommending acceptance, while leaving final acceptance and sentencing to the district judge.