Reported / Citable
Background
Marco Duarte-Soto appeared with defense counsel before a magistrate judge on July 16, 2026, to enter a guilty plea. The proceeding occurred pursuant to a referral from the district judge, and Duarte-Soto consented to pleading guilty before the magistrate judge.
During the plea hearing, the magistrate judge personally addressed Duarte-Soto in open court and conducted the inquiry required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. The court advised him of the nature of the charge, the possible penalties, his constitutional and statutory rights, and the consequences of pleading guilty. The court also examined whether the plea was voluntary and whether it had a factual basis.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Duarte-Soto was competent to stand trial, understood the charge and potential penalties, and knowingly wished to waive his constitutional and statutory rights. The judge further found that Duarte-Soto’s plea was free, knowing, and voluntary and supported by a factual basis.
The magistrate judge also found that Duarte-Soto was satisfied with his attorney’s representation and had no complaints about counsel. Based on those findings, the judge recommended—not finally ordered—that the district court accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge concluded that the Rule 11 requirements for a valid guilty plea were satisfied.
- Duarte-Soto consented to entering his plea before a magistrate judge and acknowledged that he understood the charge, penalties, rights, and consequences of pleading guilty.
- The recommendation remains subject to district-court review, and any specific written objections must be filed within 14 days after service.
Why It Matters
The memorandum documents the procedural safeguards supporting Duarte-Soto’s guilty plea and provides the findings the district judge may rely on when deciding whether to accept it. It does not itself constitute the district court’s final acceptance of the plea or entry of judgment.
The notice also underscores the consequences of failing to object: absent a timely, specific objection, a party may lose de novo district-court review and may face plain-error limits when challenging accepted findings or conclusions on appeal.