Reported / Citable
Background
Marlon Dariel Andrade-Mendoza appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge on July 7, 2026, to enter a felony guilty plea. Under a general referral order, the magistrate judge conducted the plea proceeding and advised Andrade-Mendoza that he had the right to have a district judge take his plea.
After receiving the required admonishments under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, Andrade-Mendoza pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment, which charged illegal reentry into the United States. Sentencing remained for the presiding district judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Andrade-Mendoza consented to the plea proceeding, understood the charge and possible penalties, understood and voluntarily waived his constitutional and statutory rights, and was competent to plead guilty. The judge also found that the plea was knowing and voluntary and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
The magistrate judge found Andrade-Mendoza guilty of the charge to which he pleaded and recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The findings and recommendation were not a sentencing decision, and the matter was referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing.
Key Takeaways
- Andrade-Mendoza pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found that the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied and that the plea had a sufficient factual basis.
- The recommendation called for acceptance of the plea and entry of judgment, with sentencing reserved for the district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents the procedural safeguards required before a federal felony guilty plea may be accepted, including confirmation of the defendant’s competence, understanding, voluntary waiver of rights, and the factual basis for the plea.
It also reflects the division of responsibility in this proceeding: the magistrate judge conducted the plea hearing and issued a recommendation, while the presiding district judge retained responsibility for accepting the recommendation and imposing sentence.