Reported / Citable
Background
Florentino Herrera-Bertadillo was charged in Count One of an indictment with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On September 9, 2026, he appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda and pleaded guilty after receiving the advisements required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
Herrera-Bertadillo consented to enter the plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The magistrate judge found that he understood the charge, the potential penalties and immigration consequences, the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the trial rights he would waive by pleading guilty.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Herrera-Bertadillo was competent and that his guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The court also found that the plea was not induced by promises, threats, force, or threats of force.
Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation did not itself impose sentence or finally accept the plea; final approval and sentencing remained with the district judge.
Key Takeaways
- The report recommends acceptance of a guilty plea to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- The magistrate judge found full Rule 11 compliance, including a knowing and voluntary waiver of trial rights.
- Written objections before sentencing may be necessary to preserve de novo review and appellate review of factual findings adopted by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the magistrate-judge plea procedure in federal criminal cases: a defendant may consent to plead before a magistrate judge, but the district judge retains responsibility for final acceptance and sentencing. It also underscores the preservation consequences of failing to object to a plea-related report and recommendation before sentencing.