Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Alvarado Hernandez — Magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Francisco Javier Alvarado Hernandez
Court
U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
Judge
MATTHEW H. WATTERS
Date Decided
July 10, 2026
Docket No.
2:26-cr-01764
Topics
Illegal Reentry, Guilty Plea, Rule 11

Background

Francisco Javier Alvarado Hernandez was charged in the Western District of Texas with illegal reentry into the United States. The case was referred by general order to a magistrate judge to take his felony guilty plea.

At a July 10, 2026 hearing, Alvarado Hernandez appeared with counsel and consented to have the magistrate judge take his plea. After receiving the advisements required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, he pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment without a plea agreement.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Alvarado Hernandez understood the charge, potential penalties, and rights he was waiving; was competent to plead; and entered the plea freely and voluntarily. The judge also found a sufficient factual basis for the plea and found Alvarado Hernandez guilty of the charge to which he pleaded.

The magistrate judge 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 after receipt.

Key Takeaways

  • Alvarado Hernandez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11’s competency, voluntariness, knowledge, and factual-basis requirements.
  • The recommendation leaves acceptance of the plea, entry of judgment, and sentencing to the presiding district judge.

Why It Matters

The filing documents the magistrate judge’s Rule 11 review and recommendation rather than a final sentencing decision. It also preserves the parties’ opportunity to object before the district judge acts on the recommendation.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top