Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

USA v. Chamba-Bombon — magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea for illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
USA v. Liliana Jazmin Chamba-Bombon
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Judge
Robert F. Castaneda
Date Decided
September 10, 2026
Docket No.
EP:26-CR-02096(1)-KC
Topics
Illegal reentry; Guilty plea; Rule 11; Magistrate judge

Background

Liliana Jazmin Chamba-Bombon appeared with counsel and pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment, charging illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. She entered the plea under a plea agreement.

The plea proceeding was conducted before a magistrate judge with Chamba-Bombon’s consent, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The magistrate judge admonished her under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.

The Court’s Holding

Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda found that Chamba-Bombon was competent and that her guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The court found she understood the charge, potential penalties, immigration consequences, advisory Sentencing Guidelines, and the plea agreement’s appeal and collateral-attack waiver.

The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report did not itself finally accept the plea or impose sentence.

Key Takeaways

  • The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of a guilty plea to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
  • The recommendation rests on Rule 11 findings that the plea was competent, knowing, voluntary, and factually supported.
  • Final acceptance of the plea and sentencing remain with the district judge.

Why It Matters

The report illustrates the magistrate-judge role in federal plea proceedings when the defendant consents: the magistrate judge conducts the Rule 11 colloquy and issues findings and a recommendation, while the district judge retains final approval and sentencing authority.

The report also warns that objections must be filed before sentencing; failing to object may foreclose de novo review by the district judge and appellate review of factual findings later adopted.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top