Reported / Citable
Background
Raudel Salgado-Rodriguez appeared with counsel and pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment. That count charged illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1).
Salgado-Rodriguez consented to enter the plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The magistrate judge conducted the plea colloquy required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez found that Salgado-Rodriguez understood the charge, the rights relinquished by pleading guilty, the possible penalties, immigration consequences, advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the plea agreement’s appeal and collateral-attack waiver.
The court further found him competent and determined that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. It recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The recommendation concerns acceptance of the plea, not final sentencing.
- The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1).
- Written objections before sentencing may be necessary to preserve review of factual findings adopted by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The report preserves the Rule 11 findings supporting the guilty plea while leaving final acceptance and sentencing to the district judge. It also flags the consequences of failing to object to the magistrate judge’s findings before sentencing.