Reported / Citable
Background
Ivan Patricio Guiracocha-Cumbe appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment. That count charged illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
Guiracocha-Cumbe consented to entering his plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The magistrate judge conducted the Rule 11 plea colloquy.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez found that Guiracocha-Cumbe was competent and that his guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis. The court found that he understood the charge, potential penalties, immigration consequences, advisory Sentencing Guidelines, and rights he would relinquish by pleading guilty.
The magistrate judge also found that the plea was not induced by threats or promises outside the plea agreement and that Guiracocha-Cumbe understood the agreement’s appellate and collateral-review waiver. The judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling is a report and recommendation, not the district judge’s final acceptance of the plea or sentence.
- The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- Written objections filed before sentencing are necessary to preserve de novo district-court review and appellate review of factual findings later adopted.
Why It Matters
The recommendation clears the case for the district judge’s consideration of the guilty plea and eventual sentencing. It also underscores that a defendant’s consent to a magistrate-judge plea proceeding remains subject to the district judge’s final approval.