Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

USA v. Sandoval Teus — magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Erick Ernesto Sandoval Teus
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division
Judge
Joseph A. Cordova, United States Magistrate Judge
Date Decided
August 25, 2026
Docket No.
DR:26-CR-01846(1)-AM
Topics
criminal procedure; guilty plea; illegal reentry

Background

Erick Ernesto Sandoval Teus appeared with counsel before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova 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, Sandoval Teus consented to having the magistrate judge take his plea. He pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment: illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Sandoval Teus understood the charge, potential penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; that he knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights; and that he was competent to plead guilty.

The magistrate judge further found that the plea was free and voluntary and supported by a sufficient factual basis. The court therefore found Sandoval Teus guilty and recommended that Chief District Judge Alia Moses accept the plea and enter a judgment of guilt. Sentencing was referred to the presiding district judge.

Key Takeaways

  • Sandoval Teus pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
  • The magistrate judge concluded that the Rule 11 plea requirements were satisfied.
  • The ruling was a recommendation to accept the plea; the district judge retained responsibility for acceptance and sentencing.

Why It Matters

The recommendation clears the case for the district court to formally accept the plea and proceed to sentencing. Parties had 14 days to object; absent timely objections, the report’s proposed findings and conclusions would generally be reviewed only for plain error on appeal.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top