Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Gonzalez-Munoz — Magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea to illegal re-entry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Diego Israel Gonzalez-Munoz
Court
U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
Judge
MATTHEW H. WATTERS
Date Decided
2026-07-08
Docket No.
2:26-cr-01248
Topics
Illegal Re-entry; Guilty Plea; Rule 11

Background

Diego Israel Gonzalez-Munoz was charged with illegal re-entry into the United States in Count One of the indictment. The case was referred by general order to a U.S. magistrate judge to take Gonzalez-Munoz’s felony guilty plea.

At a July 8, 2026 hearing, Gonzalez-Munoz appeared with counsel and consented to having the magistrate judge take his plea. After receiving the admonishments required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, he pleaded guilty to Count One without a plea agreement.

The Court’s Holding

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

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 notified that objections to the findings and recommendation were due within 14 days after receipt.

Key Takeaways

  • Gonzalez-Munoz pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, competent, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
  • The recommendation leaves formal acceptance of the plea, entry of judgment, and sentencing to the presiding district judge.

Why It Matters

The recommendation documents compliance with Rule 11 and provides the district judge with the findings needed to accept the felony guilty plea. It also preserves the parties’ opportunity to object before the district court acts on the recommendation.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top