Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

USA v. Clemente-Esquinca — magistrate judge recommends accepting illegal-reentry guilty plea

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Ituriel Clemente-Esquinca
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 28, 2026
Docket No.
2:26-cr-02248-EG
Topics
Illegal reentry; guilty plea; Rule 11; magistrate judge

Background

Ituriel Clemente-Esquinca was charged in Count One with illegal reentry into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova under a general order for the taking of a felony guilty plea.

At an August 28, 2026 hearing, Clemente-Esquinca appeared with counsel, consented to having the magistrate judge take his plea, and pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. Sentencing was reserved for District Judge Ernest Gonzalez.

The Court’s Holding

After conducting the Rule 11 colloquy, the magistrate judge found that Clemente-Esquinca understood the charge, potential penalties, and his rights; knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights; was competent to plead; and entered his plea freely and voluntarily.

The magistrate judge also found a sufficient factual basis for the § 1326 offense and found Clemente-Esquinca guilty of the charged count. The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation remained subject to objections and district-court review.

Key Takeaways

  • The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found the Rule 11 requirements satisfied and a factual basis for the plea.
  • The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the plea; sentencing was referred to the district judge.

Why It Matters

The filing is a report and recommendation, not a final district-court order accepting the plea or imposing sentence. Parties had 14 days to object; absent timely objections, appellate challenges to adopted findings are generally limited to plain error.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top