Reported / Citable
Background
Nathanael Castaneda-Prado appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge on July 9, 2026, to enter a felony guilty plea. The case had been referred under a general order for the magistrate judge to conduct the plea proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).
After being advised that he could have a district judge take his plea, Castaneda-Prado consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. He pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment, which charged illegal reentry into the United States.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Castaneda-Prado understood the charge, potential penalties, and the rights he was waiving. The judge also found that Castaneda-Prado was competent, that his plea was free and voluntary, and that a sufficient factual basis supported the plea.
Based on those findings, 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 after receiving the findings and recommendation to file written objections.
Key Takeaways
- Castaneda-Prado pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11’s competency, voluntariness, notice, and factual-basis requirements.
- The recommendation leaves acceptance of the plea, entry of judgment, and sentencing to the presiding district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents the procedural safeguards required before a federal felony guilty plea may be accepted. It also preserves the parties’ opportunity to object before the district judge reviews and acts on the magistrate judge’s recommendation.