Reported / Citable
Background
Ander Jeremias Evelio Chuta-Ozorio appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez and pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment. That count charged illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
Chuta-Ozorio consented to enter his plea before a magistrate judge, subject to the presiding district judge’s final approval and sentencing. The magistrate judge conducted the plea proceeding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and advised Chuta-Ozorio about his trial rights, the charge, immigration consequences, possible penalties, and the advisory Sentencing Guidelines.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found Chuta-Ozorio competent and concluded that his guilty plea was free, knowing, and voluntary. The court also found that no promises, threats, force, or threats of force induced the plea and that a factual basis supported it.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept Chuta-Ozorio’s guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report did not itself finally accept the plea, enter judgment, or impose a sentence.
Key Takeaways
- Chuta-Ozorio pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- The magistrate judge found that the plea complied with Rule 11 and was knowing and voluntary.
- Final acceptance of the plea, entry of judgment, and sentencing remain for the presiding district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation records the required Rule 11 safeguards supporting the validity of Chuta-Ozorio’s plea, including his understanding of the rights relinquished, potential punishment, immigration consequences, and sentencing process.
It also preserves the distinction between a magistrate judge’s recommendation and the district judge’s final action. Failure to object before sentencing may limit district-court and appellate review as stated in the report’s notice.