Reported / Citable
Background
Oscar Salazar-Martin appeared with counsel before a United States magistrate judge on July 7, 2026, for entry of a felony guilty plea. The case had been referred under a general order for the magistrate judge to take the plea.
After advising Salazar-Martin of his right to have the district judge take the plea and conducting the required Rule 11 colloquy, the magistrate judge found that Salazar-Martin understood the charge, potential penalties, and the rights he was waiving. Salazar-Martin pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment, illegal reentry into the United States.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters found that Salazar-Martin knowingly and voluntarily consented to the magistrate judge’s taking of his plea, was competent to plead guilty, and entered the plea freely and voluntarily. The court also found a sufficient factual basis for the plea and found Salazar-Martin guilty of the charged offense.
The magistrate judge recommended that the district court accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. Sentencing remains for the presiding district judge. The parties were advised that objections to the findings and recommendation may be filed within 14 days.
Key Takeaways
- Salazar-Martin pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found the Rule 11 plea requirements satisfied, including competence, voluntariness, and a factual basis.
- The filing is a recommendation to the district judge; it does not itself impose sentence.
Why It Matters
The recommendation moves the prosecution into the sentencing phase while preserving the parties’ opportunity to object before the district court acts on the proposed plea acceptance. It also illustrates the magistrate judge’s role in conducting a felony plea proceeding with the defendant’s consent, while sentencing is reserved for the district judge.