Reported / Citable
Background
Malik Hawthorne, a defendant in a multi-defendant federal criminal case in the Western District of Texas, was charged as defendant number two in a felony indictment. Rather than appearing directly before the district court, Hawthorne waived his appearance before U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright and instead appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland to enter a felony guilty plea.
The proceeding before the magistrate judge followed the procedure prescribed by Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which governs the taking of pleas in federal court, including the allocution requirements designed to ensure a plea is knowing and voluntary. Magistrate Judge Gilliland conducted the plea colloquy on September 23, 2025, and thereafter issued a Report and Recommendation that Hawthorne’s guilty plea be accepted by the district court.
The Court’s Holding
District Judge Alan D. Albright reviewed the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and noted that Hawthorne filed no objections to it. Satisfied with the record, the court accepted Hawthorne’s guilty plea to Count One of the superseding indictment (Count One S (1s)).
The order is brief and ministerial in nature, reflecting the court’s adoption of the magistrate judge’s recommendation without modification. No sentencing date is set forth in the order itself.
Key Takeaways
- The district court accepted Hawthorne’s guilty plea to Count One of the superseding indictment following a Rule 11 allocution conducted before a magistrate judge.
- Hawthorne raised no objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, clearing the way for the district court’s acceptance of the plea.
- The case is part of a larger multi-defendant federal prosecution in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the routine but procedurally important step by which federal district courts formally accept guilty pleas recommended by magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 636. The absence of any objection by the defendant streamlined the process and resulted in the district court’s straightforward adoption of the recommendation.
For practitioners, the case is a reminder that defendants who consent to pleading before a magistrate judge waive direct appearance before the Article III judge, and that any challenge to the plea proceeding must be raised through timely objection to the Report and Recommendation or it is forfeited.