Reported / Citable
Background
Nazareno Cortez-Mendoza appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment. That count charged illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
Cortez-Mendoza consented to enter his plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The magistrate judge conducted the required Rule 11 colloquy concerning his trial rights, the charge and possible penalties, immigration consequences, sentencing considerations, and the plea agreement’s waiver of appellate and collateral-review rights.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Cortez-Mendoza was competent and that his guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The judge also found that he understood the rights he was surrendering, the terms of the plea agreement, and the consequences of pleading guilty.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report and recommendation did not itself finally accept the plea, enter judgment, or impose a sentence.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge concluded that Cortez-Mendoza’s plea satisfied Rule 11 and was knowing, voluntary, and factually supported.
- The recommendation remains subject to the district judge’s final approval, and sentencing will occur separately.
- The notice states that failure to file written objections before sentencing may bar de novo determination by the district judge and shall bar appellate review of factual findings that the district judge accepts or adopts.
Why It Matters
The report documents the procedural safeguards used when a defendant enters a felony guilty plea before a magistrate judge. It confirms the defendant’s understanding of his trial rights, sentencing exposure, immigration consequences, and plea-agreement waivers while reserving final acceptance for the district judge.
Its objection notice also distinguishes between two consequences: failure to object may bar district-court de novo determination, while it shall bar appellate review of accepted or adopted factual findings.