Reported / Citable
Background
Javier Moreno-Moreno was charged in Count One of an indictment with illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty under a plea agreement.
Moreno-Moreno consented to entering his plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The plea agreement included a waiver of his right to appeal or collaterally attack the conviction or sentence.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez found that Moreno-Moreno was competent and that his guilty plea was free, knowing, and voluntary. The court found that he understood the charge, his trial rights, the possible penalties and immigration consequences, the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the terms of the plea agreement.
The magistrate judge also found a factual basis for the plea and that it was not induced by unrecorded promises, threats, force, or threats of force. The judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The recommendation concerns acceptance of a guilty plea, not final sentencing.
- The magistrate judge concluded that Rule 11’s plea-colloquy requirements were satisfied.
- Written objections before sentencing may be necessary to preserve district-court and appellate review of factual findings adopted from the recommendation.
Why It Matters
The report clears the way for the district judge to accept Moreno-Moreno’s plea and later impose sentence on the illegal-reentry charge. It also underscores that a defendant’s consent permits a magistrate judge to conduct the plea proceeding, while final approval and sentencing remain with the district judge.