Reported / Citable
Background
Diogenes Celso Juarez-Guzman 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.
Juarez-Guzman consented to enter 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 Juarez-Guzman understood the charge, the consequences of pleading guilty, his trial rights, the potential penalties, the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the terms of his plea agreement.
The magistrate judge further found that the plea was competent, free, knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. She recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The report and recommendation did not itself finally accept the plea or impose sentence; those matters remained for the district judge.
- The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- Written objections filed before sentencing were required to preserve de novo review and appellate review of factual findings adopted by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The report documents the Rule 11 findings supporting a guilty plea and provides the procedural basis for the district judge to accept it. It also underscores that a defendant who consents to a magistrate-led plea hearing may still face waiver consequences if objections to the recommendation are not timely filed.