Reported / Citable
Background
Maribel Panzo-Ramos appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty, under a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment. The count charged illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
Panzo-Ramos consented to enter her plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The magistrate judge conducted the plea proceeding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda found that Panzo-Ramos understood the charge, her trial rights, the possible penalties, the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the terms of her plea agreement, including its appeal and collateral-attack waiver.
The court further found that Panzo-Ramos was competent and that her plea was free, knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The filing is a report and recommendation, not the district judge’s final acceptance of the plea or sentencing decision.
- The magistrate judge concluded that the Rule 11 plea colloquy established a knowing and voluntary guilty plea.
- Written objections before sentencing may be necessary to preserve de novo review and appellate review of adopted factual findings.
Why It Matters
The recommendation clears the case for the district judge to decide whether to accept Panzo-Ramos’s guilty plea and later impose sentence. It also documents the defendant’s understanding of the plea agreement and the rights relinquished by pleading guilty.