Reported / Citable
Background
Justin Derick Cano appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment. That count charged importation of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a).
Cano consented to entering his plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The plea agreement included a waiver of his right to appeal or collaterally attack the conviction or sentence.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez found that Cano understood the Rule 11 admonishments, the charge, the potential penalties, the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the consequences of his plea agreement.
The magistrate judge further found that Cano was competent and that his plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt; final acceptance and sentencing remain for the district judge.
Key Takeaways
- The document is a report and recommendation, not the district judge’s final acceptance of the plea.
- The magistrate judge found the Rule 11 requirements satisfied.
- Written objections before sentencing may be necessary to preserve review of factual findings adopted by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation clears the way for the district judge to accept Cano’s plea and proceed to sentencing. It also underscores that a defendant’s consent permits a magistrate judge to conduct the plea proceeding, while final approval remains with the district judge.