Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Perez-Gomez — magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea for illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Fredy Osmin Perez-Gomez
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division
Judge
JOSEPH A CORDOVA
Date Decided
July 1, 2026
Docket No.
DR:26-CR-00157(1)-EG
Topics
Illegal reentry; Guilty plea; Rule 11; Magistrate judge

Background

Fredy Osmin Perez-Gomez appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge to enter a felony guilty plea. The matter had been referred under a general order for the taking of the plea.

After receiving Rule 11 admonishments, Perez-Gomez pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment, charging illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sentencing remains assigned to the presiding district judge.

The Court’s Holding

Magistrate Judge Joseph A Cordova found that Perez-Gomez knowingly and voluntarily consented to having the magistrate judge take his plea; understood the charge, possible penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; and voluntarily waived those rights.

The magistrate judge further found Perez-Gomez competent, determined that a sufficient factual basis supported the plea, found him guilty of the charged offense, and recommended that the district court accept the plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation is subject to objections and district-court review.

Key Takeaways

  • Perez-Gomez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, competent, and supported by an adequate factual basis.
  • The district judge must decide whether to accept the recommendation and will conduct sentencing.

Why It Matters

The filing is a report and recommendation, not a final district-court acceptance of the plea or sentencing judgment. Parties have 14 days to lodge written objections; absent objections, review and later appellate challenges are limited as stated in the recommendation.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top