Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Beltran-Vera — Magistrate judge recommended accepting an illegal-reentry guilty plea

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Angel Francisco Beltran-Vera
Court
U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
Judge
JOSEPH A CORDOVA
Date Decided
June 30, 2026
Docket No.
2:26-cr-01149
Topics
Illegal Reentry, Guilty Plea, Rule 11, Magistrate Judge

Background

Angel Francisco Beltran-Vera was charged with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The case was referred by general order to U.S. Magistrate Judge JOSEPH A CORDOVA to conduct the felony guilty-plea proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).

On June 30, 2026, Beltran-Vera appeared with counsel and consented to have the magistrate judge take his plea. After receiving the required Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 admonishments, he pleaded guilty to Count One without a plea agreement.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Beltran-Vera understood the charge, possible penalties, and rights he was waiving; was competent; and entered his plea freely and voluntarily. The judge also found a sufficient factual basis for the plea and noted that Beltran-Vera acknowledged he might be subject to restitution.

The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The matter was referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing, and the parties were given 14 days to object to the findings and recommendation.

Key Takeaways

  • Beltran-Vera pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, competent, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
  • The filing recommends acceptance of the plea; sentencing remains before the presiding district judge.

Why It Matters

The recommendation documents compliance with Rule 11 and provides the district judge with findings supporting acceptance of the felony guilty plea. It also preserves the parties’ opportunity to seek de novo district-court review by filing timely objections.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top