Reported / Citable
Background
On May 28, 2025, U.S. District Judge David Counts sentenced Alejandro Huerta-Luna to time served plus a one-year term of non-reporting supervised release following a conviction for illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Huerta-Luna’s supervised release began that same day.
On May 12, 2026, the United States Probation Office petitioned for a warrant, alleging that Huerta-Luna had violated a mandatory condition of his supervision. Specifically, the petition alleged that on or about March 8, 2024—before his original sentencing—Huerta-Luna, a previously deported alien, had again been found unlawfully present in Liberty Hill, Texas, without having obtained consent to reapply for admission from the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
The matter was referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge Dan N. MacLemore for a report and recommendation. At a hearing held on June 2, 2026, Huerta-Luna entered a plea of no contest to the alleged violation, and the magistrate found a sufficient factual basis to support that plea.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge MacLemore found that Huerta-Luna violated the conditions of his supervised release as alleged in the petition. The court further found that Huerta-Luna was competent, understood the proceedings, had adequate opportunity to consult with counsel, and freely and voluntarily entered his no-contest plea with knowledge of his right to contest the violation at a hearing.
The magistrate recommends that District Judge Christopher R. Wolfe revoke Huerta-Luna’s supervised release and impose a three-month term of imprisonment, with credit for any time already served since arrest, and no further term of supervised release to follow. Parties have fourteen days to file written objections to the report; failure to do so waives de novo review by the district judge and, except for plain error, forecloses appellate review.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen on supervised release for illegal reentry can face revocation—and a new prison term—if discovered to have committed another unlawful entry, even if that entry predated the original sentencing.
- A no-contest plea at a supervised release revocation hearing is treated as an admission sufficient to support revocation, provided the court finds it was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
- The recommended sanction—three months’ imprisonment with no further supervision—reflects the court’s judgment that additional supervised release is unwarranted where the underlying conduct involves illegal presence in the United States.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates how supervised release conditions can expose defendants to additional incarceration for conduct that predates the original sentence but comes to light only later. For noncitizen defendants, mandatory supervision conditions operate as a continuing obligation that can trigger revocation even when the underlying violation occurred before sentencing was imposed.
Defense practitioners representing noncitizen clients should be aware that probation offices may petition for revocation based on prior unlawful entries discovered after supervision begins, and that a no-contest plea—while avoiding a contested hearing—carries the same revocation consequences as a formal admission.