Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

De La Cruz-Perez — magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Sebastian De La Cruz-Perez
Court
U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
Judge
ROBERT F. CASTANEDA
Date Decided
July 21, 2026
Docket No.
3:26-cr-01576
Topics
Illegal Reentry; Guilty Plea; Rule 11

Background

Sebastian De La Cruz-Perez was charged in Count One of an indictment with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge and consented to enter his guilty plea before the magistrate judge, subject to the district judge’s final approval and sentencing.

After administering the required Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 admonishments, the magistrate judge questioned De La Cruz-Perez about the charge, his trial rights, the potential penalties and immigration consequences, and the advisory Sentencing Guidelines. De La Cruz-Perez then pleaded guilty to Count One.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that De La Cruz-Perez was competent and that his guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The judge also found that De La Cruz-Perez understood the charge, the consequences of pleading guilty, the rights he would relinquish, and the sentencing court’s consideration of the advisory Guidelines and the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

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 or impose a sentence; those matters remained for the presiding district judge.

Key Takeaways

  • De La Cruz-Perez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
  • The magistrate judge found the plea competent, knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.
  • The recommendation remains subject to the district judge’s final approval, and sentencing has not yet occurred.

Why It Matters

The report documents the Rule 11 safeguards used to ensure that a criminal defendant understands the charge, available trial rights, immigration consequences, and potential punishment before pleading guilty. It also underscores the limited role of the magistrate judge in this proceeding: the magistrate judge recommended acceptance, while final acceptance and sentencing remain with the district judge.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top