Reported / Citable
Background
Miguel Angel Hernandez-Santiz appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment, charging illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
The defendant consented to enter the 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 Hernandez-Santiz understood the charge, the rights he was waiving, the potential penalties, the immigration consequences, and the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines.
The court also found that the plea was competent, free, knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. It recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- This was a report and recommendation, not the district judge’s final acceptance of the plea or sentence.
- The magistrate judge found Rule 11’s plea requirements satisfied.
- Written objections before sentencing may be necessary to preserve de novo review and appellate review of adopted factual findings.
Why It Matters
The recommendation clears the way for the district judge to accept Hernandez-Santiz’s plea and proceed to sentencing on the illegal-reentry charge. It also underscores that a defendant’s consent permits a magistrate judge to conduct the plea proceeding, while final approval and sentencing remain with the district judge.