Reported / Citable
Background
Yvelise Eliannet Martinez-Valerio appeared before the magistrate judge on June 23, 2026, and pled guilty to Count One of an indictment charging her with Illegal Re-Entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The plea was entered after the defendant was admonished pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that the defendant was competent to enter a guilty plea and that all requirements for a valid plea under Rule 11 were satisfied. The defendant demonstrated full understanding of her constitutional rights, including the right to plead not guilty, to trial by jury, to confront witnesses, and to be protected from self-incrimination. She also understood the nature of the charge, the maximum penalties applicable, mandatory minimums, and the immigration consequences of her plea.
The magistrate found that the guilty plea was entered freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, without any promises, threats, force, or coercion. There was a factual basis supporting the plea of guilty. Based on these findings, the magistrate recommended to the district judge that the defendant’s plea be accepted and that a judgment of guilt be entered.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pled guilty to illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)
- Magistrate found defendant understood all constitutional trial rights and consequences of waiving them
- Defendant was informed of immigration consequences of the guilty plea
- Plea was voluntary and made without inducement or coercion; final judgment and sentencing remain pending before the district judge
Why It Matters
This is a procedural document in an immigration-related criminal case representing a key stage in the criminal process—the acceptance of a guilty plea with all requisite Rule 11 protections. Though the magistrate’s recommendation must still be approved by the district judge, who will also determine sentencing, the document reflects the careful safeguards courts apply to ensure guilty pleas are knowing and voluntary.