Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

USA v. Rodriguez-Marcial — Magistrate judge recommends accepting guilty plea in alien-smuggling conspiracy case

Reported / Citable

Case
USA v. Kenya Jocelyn Rodriguez-Marcial
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division
Judge
Robert F. Castaneda
Date Decided
August 13, 2026
Docket No.
EP:26-CR-00140(1)-DCG
Topics
Guilty plea; Alien smuggling; Rule 11; Magistrate judge recommendation

Background

Kenya Jocelyn Rodriguez-Marcial appeared with counsel for a plea hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda. She pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to an information charging conspiracy to bring aliens into the United States without authorization for financial gain, under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Rodriguez-Marcial waived prosecution by indictment and agreed to proceed by information. She also consented to enter her plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge.

The Court’s Holding

After conducting the required Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 colloquy, the magistrate judge found that Rodriguez-Marcial understood the charge, trial rights, potential penalties, advisory Sentencing Guidelines, and terms of her plea agreement. The court also found that she knowingly waived her appellate and collateral-review rights as provided in that agreement.

The magistrate judge further found that Rodriguez-Marcial was competent and that her plea was free, knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The report therefore recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.

Key Takeaways

  • The ruling is a report and recommendation, not the district judge’s final acceptance of the plea or sentencing decision.
  • The defendant pleaded guilty to an alien-smuggling conspiracy for financial gain after waiving indictment and proceeding by information.
  • Written objections before sentencing may preserve issues for de novo review by the district judge and appellate review.

Why It Matters

The recommendation documents a Rule 11 finding that the plea was constitutionally valid and factually supported, positioning the case for the district judge’s final plea acceptance and sentencing.

It also underscores that a defendant who does not timely object to a magistrate judge’s findings risks losing de novo and appellate review of factual matters later adopted by the district court.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top