Reported / Citable
Background
Nelly De Luna 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 De Luna consented to pleading guilty before the magistrate judge.
The magistrate judge personally addressed De Luna in open court and provided the admonishments required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Those admonishments covered the nature of the charge, possible penalties, constitutional and statutory rights, and the consequences of pleading guilty.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that De Luna was competent, understood the charge and possible penalties, understood and wished to waive the applicable rights, and entered the plea freely, knowingly, and voluntarily. The judge also found that De Luna was satisfied with counsel’s representation and that a factual basis supported the plea.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court accept De Luna’s guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The memorandum is a recommendation rather than a final order accepting the plea.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge concluded that De Luna’s guilty plea satisfied Rule 11’s competency, knowledge, voluntariness, and factual-basis requirements.
- De Luna consented to entering the plea before a magistrate judge and reported no complaints about counsel’s representation.
- The parties have 14 days after service to file specific written objections; failure to object may limit district-court and appellate review.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents the procedural safeguards used to determine whether De Luna’s plea was valid. If the district judge accepts the recommendation, the guilty plea will be accepted and a judgment of guilt will be entered.