Reported / Citable
Background
Gaspar Salto-Perez appeared with counsel before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova for entry of a felony guilty plea. The matter had been referred under a general order for the taking of the plea, while sentencing remained with the presiding district judge.
After receiving Rule 11 admonishments and advising Salto-Perez of his right to have a district judge take the plea, the magistrate judge found that Salto-Perez consented to the magistrate judge’s role. Salto-Perez pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to Count One of the Superseding Information: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Salto-Perez understood the charge, penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; voluntarily waived those rights; and was competent to plead guilty. The court also found the plea voluntary and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
The magistrate judge found Salto-Perez guilty of the offense to which he pleaded and recommended that the district court accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation was referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing, subject to the parties’ opportunity to object within 14 days.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of Salto-Perez’s guilty plea to a methamphetamine-distribution conspiracy.
- The plea was found knowing, voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis.
- The district judge, not the magistrate judge, will conduct sentencing after review of any objections.
Why It Matters
The order reflects the Rule 11 safeguards required before a felony guilty plea may proceed, including confirmation of competency, informed waiver of rights, voluntariness, and a factual basis.
Because this is a findings-and-recommendation order, the ultimate acceptance of the plea and entry of judgment remain for the district judge after the objection period.