Reported / Citable
Background
Mario Alvarado-Carrasco appeared with counsel before Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters on August 5, 2026, for a felony guilty-plea proceeding. The case had been referred to the magistrate judge under a general order for the taking of the plea.
After receiving Rule 11 admonishments and being advised of his right to have the plea taken by a district judge, Alvarado-Carrasco consented to the magistrate judge’s taking of his plea. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment, illegal reentry into the United States.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Alvarado-Carrasco understood the charge, potential penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; that he voluntarily waived those rights; and that he was competent to plead guilty. The court also found the plea knowing and voluntary and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
The magistrate judge found Alvarado-Carrasco guilty of the count to which he pleaded and recommended that the district court accept the plea and enter a judgment of guilt. Sentencing was referred to Chief U.S. District Judge Alia Moses. The recommendation remained subject to objections and district-court review.
Key Takeaways
- The defendant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to illegal reentry.
- The magistrate judge found the Rule 11 plea requirements satisfied.
- The magistrate judge recommended acceptance; the district judge retained sentencing authority.
Why It Matters
The ruling illustrates the magistrate-judge plea process in a felony case: with the defendant’s consent, a magistrate judge may conduct the plea colloquy and issue findings and a recommendation, while the district judge decides whether to accept the plea and conducts sentencing.