Reported / Citable
Background
Rudy Noe Quintanilla-Diaz appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge in the Western District of Texas for a felony guilty-plea proceeding. The matter had been referred under a general order for the taking of a felony plea.
After being advised of his right to have the plea taken by a district judge and receiving Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 admonishments, Quintanilla-Diaz 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 Quintanilla-Diaz consented to the magistrate judge’s taking of the plea, understood the charge, penalties, and rights at issue, and voluntarily waived his constitutional and statutory rights. The court also found him competent and concluded that a sufficient factual basis supported the plea.
The magistrate judge found Quintanilla-Diaz guilty of the charged offense and recommended that the district court accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. Sentencing was referred to the presiding district judge.
Key Takeaways
- The recommendation concerns acceptance of a guilty plea, not sentencing.
- The defendant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to illegal reentry.
- Parties have 14 days to file written objections to the findings and recommendation.
Why It Matters
The report illustrates the magistrate-judge plea process in a federal felony case: after the defendant consents and receives Rule 11 advisements, the magistrate judge may make findings and recommend acceptance, while the district judge retains responsibility for final acceptance and sentencing.