Reported / Citable
Background
Juvencio Ordonez-Perez appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Miguel A. Torres 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).
Ordonez-Perez consented to enter his plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding U.S. district judge. The magistrate judge conducted the plea proceeding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and advised Ordonez-Perez about his trial rights, the charge, immigration consequences, possible penalties, sentencing considerations, and the terms of the plea agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Ordonez-Perez was competent and that his guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The judge also found that Ordonez-Perez understood the rights he relinquished, the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the sentencing court’s consideration of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The magistrate judge further found that Ordonez-Perez understood the plea agreement, including its waiver of the right to appeal or collaterally attack the conviction or sentence and its provision that he could not withdraw his plea merely because the district court declined to follow requested or recommended sentencing adjustments. Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- Ordonez-Perez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- The magistrate judge found the plea competent, knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis after conducting the Rule 11 inquiry.
- The recommendation remains subject to the district judge’s final approval, and objections must be filed before sentencing to preserve the review identified in the notice.
Why It Matters
The report documents the procedural safeguards required before a federal guilty plea may be accepted, including confirmation that the defendant understands the charge, constitutional rights, immigration consequences, potential punishment, and plea-agreement waivers.
It also reflects the magistrate judge’s limited role at this stage: recommending acceptance of the plea and entry of guilt while leaving final approval and sentencing to the presiding district judge.