Reported / Citable
Background
Jonas Alfonso Diaz-Graffe appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge John R. Parker and, by consent, entered a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Under a plea agreement with the government, Diaz-Graffe pleaded guilty to all three counts of the indictment, which charged offenses involving the transportation of an unlawfully present alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1324.
After placing Diaz-Graffe under oath and examining him in open court, the magistrate judge found that he understood the charges, penalties, plea agreement, and rights he was waiving. The judge also found that Diaz-Graffe was competent, that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and that the plea had a factual basis.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept Diaz-Graffe’s guilty plea, adjudge him guilty, and impose sentence accordingly. The report emphasized that the presiding district judge retains final decision-making authority and may review the magistrate judge’s actions.
The magistrate judge also recommended accepting both parties’ waivers of the 14-day objection period and proceeding directly to consideration of the report and recommendation. In addition, the judge recommended accepting Diaz-Graffe’s knowing and voluntary waiver of a full presentence investigation and report, proceeding to sentencing based on the existing record and a Guidelines worksheet, and making the findings required by Rule 32(c)(1)(A)(ii) at the sentencing hearing.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling is a report and recommendation, not a final acceptance of the plea or judgment of conviction.
- The magistrate judge found that Diaz-Graffe’s guilty plea and waivers were knowing and voluntary and that the plea had a factual basis.
- The district judge must decide whether to accept the plea and waivers and, if sentencing without a full presentence report, make the findings required by Rule 32.
Why It Matters
The report illustrates the procedural safeguards required when a magistrate judge conducts a felony plea proceeding by consent. It also shows that waiving a full presentence investigation does not eliminate the district court’s obligation to determine on the record that the available information permits a meaningful exercise of sentencing authority.