Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Montez De Oca-Rubio — magistrate judge recommends accepting guilty plea

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Gabriel Montez De Oca-Rubio
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division
Judge
Joseph A. Cordova, United States Magistrate Judge
Date Decided
July 27, 2026
Docket No.
DR:26-CR-01020(1)-EG
Topics
Guilty plea; Alien transportation; Rule 11; Magistrate judge recommendation

Background

Gabriel Montez De Oca-Rubio appeared with counsel before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova for a felony guilty-plea proceeding. The matter had been referred to the magistrate judge for that purpose under a general order.

After being advised of his right to have a district judge take his plea, De Oca-Rubio consented to proceeding before the magistrate judge. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to conspiracy to transport illegal aliens and transportation of illegal aliens for profit.

The Court’s Holding

Magistrate Judge Cordova found that De Oca-Rubio understood the charges, penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; voluntarily waived those rights; was competent; and entered his plea freely and voluntarily. The magistrate judge also found a sufficient factual basis for both guilty pleas.

The magistrate judge found De Oca-Rubio guilty of Counts One and Two and recommended that the district judge accept the plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation left sentencing to the presiding district judge and advised the parties that objections were due within 14 days.

Key Takeaways

  • The defendant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to alien-transportation offenses.
  • The magistrate judge found the Rule 11 plea requirements satisfied.
  • The document is a recommendation; acceptance of the plea and sentencing remained for the district judge.

Why It Matters

The decision reflects the magistrate-judge plea process in a felony case where the defendant consents after receiving Rule 11 advisements. It also preserves the parties’ opportunity to seek district-court review by timely objecting to the findings and recommendation.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top