Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Munguia-Mendoza — Magistrate judge recommended accepting an illegal-reentry guilty plea

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Melvin Noe Munguia-Mendoza
Court
U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
Judge
MATTHEW H. WATTERS
Date Decided
2026-07-08
Docket No.
2:26-cr-01155
Topics
Illegal reentry; Guilty plea; Rule 11; Magistrate judge

Background

Melvin Noe Munguia-Mendoza was charged with illegal reentry into the United States in Count One of an indictment. The case was referred by general order to U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters to take Munguia-Mendoza’s felony guilty plea.

On July 7, 2026, Munguia-Mendoza appeared with counsel and consented to have the magistrate judge take his plea, while sentencing remained for the presiding district judge. After receiving the required Rule 11 admonishments, he pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Munguia-Mendoza understood the charge, potential penalties, and the constitutional and statutory rights he was waiving. The judge also found that Munguia-Mendoza was competent, entered the plea freely and voluntarily, and acknowledged that restitution might apply.

Finding a sufficient factual basis for the plea, the magistrate judge found Munguia-Mendoza 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.

Key Takeaways

  • Munguia-Mendoza pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11 and was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
  • The recommendation remained subject to objections and acceptance by the district judge, who would conduct sentencing.

Why It Matters

The findings document the procedural safeguards supporting Munguia-Mendoza’s felony guilty plea and recommend its formal acceptance. The report also advised the parties that failing to object within 14 days could limit district-court and appellate review of unobjected-to findings and conclusions.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top