Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Sanchez-Solis — Magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Adrian David Sanchez-Solis
Court
U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
Judge
MATTHEW H. WATTERS
Date Decided
July 10, 2026
Docket No.
2:26-cr-01326
Topics
Guilty Plea, Illegal Reentry, Rule 11

Background

Adrian David Sanchez-Solis appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge for a felony guilty-plea proceeding. He consented to having the magistrate judge take his plea, while sentencing remained assigned to the presiding district judge.

Sanchez-Solis pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment charging illegal reentry into the United States. The magistrate judge personally addressed him in open court and provided the admonishments required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Sanchez-Solis understood the charge, possible penalties, and the constitutional and statutory rights he was waiving. The judge also found that Sanchez-Solis was competent, entered the plea freely and voluntarily, and had an adequate factual basis for his plea.

After finding Sanchez-Solis 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 case was referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing.

Key Takeaways

  • Sanchez-Solis pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, competent, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
  • The recommendation was to accept the plea and enter judgment; sentencing remains for the presiding district judge.

Why It Matters

The findings document compliance with Rule 11 and support acceptance of Sanchez-Solis’s felony guilty plea. The parties have 14 days after receiving the recommendation to file written objections, with failure to object limiting later district-court and appellate review as described in the opinion.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top