Reported / Citable
Background
Hiram Leonardo Davila-Estrada appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment under an amended plea agreement. The count charged conspiracy to transport aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I), § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii), and § 1324(a)(1)(B)(i).
Davila-Estrada consented to enter his plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. During the Rule 11 colloquy, he acknowledged his trial rights, the potential penalties and immigration consequences of the plea, and the appeal and collateral-attack waiver in his amended plea agreement.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda found that Davila-Estrada was competent and that his guilty plea was free, knowing, and voluntary. The court also found that he understood the charge, the plea agreement, the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the consequences of pleading guilty.
The magistrate judge further found a factual basis for the plea. The report therefore recommended that the district judge accept Davila-Estrada’s guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The filing is a report and recommendation, not the district judge’s final acceptance of the plea or sentencing decision.
- The plea concerns a conspiracy to transport aliens under 8 U.S.C. § 1324.
- Davila-Estrada waived rights to appeal or collaterally attack his eventual sentence under the amended plea agreement, as described in the Rule 11 colloquy.
Why It Matters
The recommendation clears the case for the district judge’s review of the guilty plea and later sentencing. It also underscores that objections to the magistrate judge’s findings must be filed before sentencing to preserve de novo review and appellate review of factual findings adopted by the district court.