Reported / Citable
Background
Jose Alfonso Villagomez-Munoz appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge on July 7, 2026, to enter a felony guilty plea. The matter had been referred to the magistrate judge under a general order for the taking of the plea.
After being advised that he had the right to have the district judge take his plea, Villagomez-Munoz consented to proceeding before the magistrate judge. He pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment, which charged illegal reentry into the United States.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Villagomez-Munoz understood the charge, potential penalties, and the constitutional and statutory rights he was waiving. The judge further found that the defendant was competent, entered the plea freely and voluntarily, and that the plea had a sufficient factual basis.
Based on those findings, 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 given 14 days to object to the findings and recommendation.
Key Takeaways
- Villagomez-Munoz 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 does not itself complete sentencing; the presiding district judge will conduct sentencing.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents the procedural safeguards required before a federal felony guilty plea may be accepted. It also preserves the division of responsibility in the referred proceeding: the magistrate judge took the plea and recommended its acceptance, while the district judge retains responsibility for acting on the recommendation and imposing sentence.