Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Cerrato-Diaz — magistrate judge recommended accepting an illegal-reentry guilty plea

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Jhimy Cerrato-Diaz
Court
U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
Judge
JOSEPH A CORDOVA
Date Decided
July 2, 2026
Docket No.
2:26-cr-01150
Topics
Illegal Reentry, Guilty Plea, Rule 11

Background

Jhimy Cerrato-Diaz was charged with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The felony guilty-plea proceeding was referred by general order to U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph A Cordova under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).

On July 2, 2026, Cerrato-Diaz appeared with counsel and consented to having the magistrate judge take his plea. After receiving the admonishments required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, he pleaded guilty to Count One without a plea agreement.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Cerrato-Diaz understood the charge, potential penalties, and rights he was waiving; was competent to plead guilty; and entered the plea freely and voluntarily. The judge also found a sufficient factual basis for the plea and noted that Cerrato-Diaz acknowledged he could 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 advised that objections to the findings and recommendation were due within 14 days.

Key Takeaways

  • Cerrato-Diaz pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11’s competency, voluntariness, understanding, and factual-basis requirements.
  • The filing is a recommendation to the district judge, who retains responsibility for accepting the plea, entering judgment, and imposing sentence.

Why It Matters

The recommendation records the procedural findings necessary for acceptance of a felony guilty plea taken by a magistrate judge with the defendant’s consent. It also preserves the district judge’s role in formally acting on the recommendation and conducting sentencing.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top