Reported / Citable
Background
Luis Adrian Ic-Toribio appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment. The count charged illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, pursuant to a plea agreement.
Ic-Toribio 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 plea colloquy required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Ic-Toribio was competent and that his guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The court found that he understood the charge, potential penalties, immigration consequences, advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and rights relinquished by pleading guilty.
The magistrate judge also found that Ic-Toribio understood the plea agreement, including its waiver of appellate and collateral-review rights as to the sentence, and that the plea was not induced by promises outside the agreement or by threats or force. The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The report and recommendation does not itself finally accept the plea; final approval and sentencing remain with the district judge.
- The magistrate judge found Rule 11’s plea requirements satisfied, including competence, voluntariness, and a factual basis.
- Written objections filed before sentencing are necessary to preserve de novo review by the district judge and appellate review of factual findings later adopted.
Why It Matters
The recommendation clears the way for the district judge to accept Ic-Toribio’s guilty plea to illegal reentry and proceed to sentencing. It also underscores that a defendant’s consent permits a magistrate judge to conduct the plea proceeding, while the district judge retains final authority over acceptance and sentencing.