Reported / Citable
Background
Hector De La Cruz-Romero was charged in an indictment with Illegal Re-Entry, a violation of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). This federal statute criminalizes the re-entry of any alien who has been deported, removed, or excluded from the United States and who re-enters without permission.
On June 23, 2026, the defendant and his counsel appeared before Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda for a plea hearing. Following admonishment of his constitutional rights pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge. The Magistrate Judge was tasked with conducting the Rule 11 colloquy and determining whether the guilty plea was valid and should be recommended to the District Judge for acceptance.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge conducted a comprehensive Rule 11 colloquy and made findings that the defendant fully understood his constitutional rights, including the right to a jury trial, to confront adverse witnesses, to be protected from self-incrimination, and to testify and present evidence. The defendant also understood the nature of the charges, the applicable maximum penalties, mandatory minimum sentences, fines, and terms of supervised release applicable to illegal re-entry.
The Magistrate Judge found that the defendant understood the immigration consequences of the guilty plea—a critical element in immigration-related criminal cases. The court determined that the plea was made freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, without promises, threats, or coercion. The defendant was found competent to enter the plea, and there was a factual basis to support it. Based on these findings, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the District Judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt, with sentencing to be determined by the presiding District Judge.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pleaded guilty to Illegal Re-Entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)
- All Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 requirements were satisfied, including explicit advisement of immigration consequences
- Magistrate Judge found the plea voluntary and made with a sufficient factual basis
- Sentencing will be determined by the District Judge, who will consider advisory Sentencing Guidelines and statutory sentencing factors
Why It Matters
This case reflects federal immigration enforcement against individuals who re-enter the United States following removal or deportation. Illegal re-entry carries serious criminal penalties, including mandatory minimum imprisonment. For practitioners, the Magistrate Judge’s meticulous compliance with Rule 11—particularly the explicit advisement of immigration consequences—demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring defendants understand the cascading consequences of guilty pleas in immigration crimes.
The detailed findings in this Report and Recommendation protect against post-conviction challenges claiming an invalid guilty plea. Defense counsel’s documented explanation of immigration consequences is especially critical, as courts recognize that immigration consequences can be the most significant collateral consequence of a criminal conviction for non-citizens.