Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Rivera-Chavarria — Magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Jenner Saul Rivera-Chavarria
Court
U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
Judge
Matthew H. Watters
Date Decided
July 10, 2026
Docket No.
2:26-cr-00990
Topics
Illegal Reentry; Guilty Plea; Rule 11

Background

Jenner Saul Rivera-Chavarria appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters to enter a felony guilty plea. Rivera-Chavarria consented to having the magistrate judge take the plea after being advised that he had the right to have the district judge do so.

Following the required Rule 11 admonishments, Rivera-Chavarria pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment, which charged illegal reentry into the United States. Sentencing remained for the presiding district judge.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Rivera-Chavarria understood the charge, potential penalties, and the constitutional and statutory rights he was waiving. The judge also found that Rivera-Chavarria was competent, that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and that a sufficient factual basis supported it.

Judge Watters found Rivera-Chavarria 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 findings and recommendation were not a sentencing decision and left sentencing to the presiding district judge.

Key Takeaways

  • Rivera-Chavarria pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11 and was supported by a sufficient factual basis.
  • The recommendation called for acceptance of the plea and entry of judgment, while reserving sentencing for the district judge.

Why It Matters

The recommendation documents the procedural safeguards required before a federal felony guilty plea may be accepted, including confirmation of the defendant’s competence, understanding, voluntariness, and waiver of rights.

It also reflects the division of responsibility in this proceeding: the magistrate judge conducted the plea hearing and issued a recommendation, while the district judge retained authority over acceptance of that recommendation and sentencing.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top