United States v. Cano — Magistrate judge recommended accepting Cano’s guilty plea

Reported / Citable

Background

Alberto Cano appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment. The count charged conspiracy to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1).

Cano consented to entering his plea before a magistrate judge, subject to the presiding district judge’s final approval and sentencing. During the Rule 11 proceeding, the magistrate judge addressed Cano’s trial rights, the charge and possible penalties, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, and the terms and consequences of the plea agreement.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Cano was competent and that his plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The judge also found that Cano understood the rights he was giving up, the potential sentencing consequences, and the plea agreement’s waiver of his right to appeal or collaterally attack the sentence imposed by the district judge.

Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept Cano’s guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report and recommendation did not itself finally accept the plea or impose a sentence.

Key Takeaways

• The magistrate judge concluded that Cano’s guilty plea satisfied Rule 11 and was entered freely, knowingly, and voluntarily.
• Cano acknowledged that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory and that he could not withdraw his plea merely because the sentencing court declined to apply a recommended or requested adjustment in the plea agreement.
• The notice stated that failure to file written objections before sentencing may bar de novo determination by the district judge and would bar appellate review of factual findings accepted or adopted by the district judge.

Why It Matters

The report documents the findings supporting Cano’s guilty plea while preserving the district judge’s responsibility to decide whether to accept it and enter judgment. It also records Cano’s understanding of the plea agreement, including its appellate and collateral-review waiver, ahead of sentencing.