Reported / Citable
Background
Francisco Gutierrez-Pedroza appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge on July 9, 2026, to enter a felony guilty plea. The matter had been referred to the magistrate judge for the taking of the plea.
After being advised that he could have the district judge take his plea, Gutierrez-Pedroza 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
Following the Rule 11 plea colloquy, the magistrate judge found that Gutierrez-Pedroza understood the charge, potential penalties, and the rights he was waiving. The judge also found him competent, determined that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and concluded that the plea had a sufficient factual basis.
The magistrate judge found Gutierrez-Pedroza 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 case 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
- Gutierrez-Pedroza pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found that the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied and that the plea was knowing, voluntary, competent, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
- The recommendation does not impose a sentence; sentencing remains for the presiding district judge.
Why It Matters
The findings document the procedural safeguards required before a federal felony guilty plea may be accepted. They also preserve the distinction between the magistrate judge’s role in conducting the plea proceeding and the district judge’s role in acting on the recommendation and imposing sentence.