Reported / Citable
Background
Juan Ricardo Herrera-Chavez was charged in Count One of an indictment with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On July 20, 2026, he appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda and pleaded guilty to that charge.
Herrera-Chavez consented to enter his plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. During the plea proceeding, the magistrate judge gave the admonishments required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found Herrera-Chavez competent and concluded that his plea was free, knowing, and voluntary. The judge also found that Herrera-Chavez 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, force, or threats of force and that a factual basis supported it. Based on those findings, the judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt; the report itself did not finally accept the plea or impose sentence.
Key Takeaways
- Herrera-Chavez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- The magistrate judge found that the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied and that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.
- Final acceptance of the plea and sentencing remain for the presiding district judge.
Why It Matters
The report documents the safeguards required before a federal court may accept a guilty plea, including confirmation that the defendant understands the surrendered trial rights, possible punishment, immigration consequences, and sentencing process.
Because this is a report and recommendation rather than a final judgment, its immediate effect is procedural: it advises the district judge to accept the plea. The notice also warns that failing to object before sentencing may limit district-court and appellate review of adopted findings.