Reported / Citable
Background
Diego James Creighton appeared with defense counsel before a magistrate judge to enter a guilty plea following a referral from the district judge. An attorney for the government also attended the October 6, 2026 hearing.
The magistrate judge personally addressed Creighton in open court. The judge confirmed that Creighton was competent, had consented to plead before a magistrate judge, and understood the charge, potential penalties, constitutional and statutory rights, and consequences of pleading guilty.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Dan N. MacLeMore found that Creighton was competent and that his plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The judge also found that Creighton understood and wished to waive his rights, understood the charge and penalties, and was satisfied with his attorney’s representation.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The memorandum and recommendation did not itself accept the plea or enter judgment. The parties were given 14 days after service to file specific written objections.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge conducted the plea proceeding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
- The court found the plea competent, knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.
- The recommendation remains subject to review by the district judge, and objections must be filed within 14 days after service.
Why It Matters
The recommendation records the procedural findings necessary for the district judge to accept Creighton’s guilty plea. It also preserves the distinction between the magistrate judge’s recommendation and the district court’s ultimate decision whether to accept the plea and enter judgment.