Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Escareno-Anguiano — magistrate judge recommended accepting illegal-reentry guilty plea

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Juan Manuel Escareno-Anguiano a/k/a Roberto Perez Cifuentes
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division
Judge
Matthew H. Watters
Date Decided
July 30, 2026
Docket No.
2:26-cr-01631
Topics
criminal procedure; guilty plea; illegal reentry; magistrate judge

Background

Juan Manuel Escareno-Anguiano, also known as Roberto Perez Cifuentes, appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters for the taking of a felony guilty plea. The matter had been referred under a general order.

After receiving Rule 11 admonishments and being advised of his right to have a district judge take the plea, Escareno-Anguiano consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One, illegal reentry into the United States.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Escareno-Anguiano understood the charge, penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; voluntarily waived those rights; was competent to plead guilty; and entered the plea freely and voluntarily. The judge also found a sufficient factual basis for the plea.

The magistrate judge found Escareno-Anguiano guilty of the charge to which he pleaded and recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The case was referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing.

Key Takeaways

  • The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge concluded that the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied and that a factual basis supported the plea.
  • The recommendation remains subject to objections and action by the district judge.

Why It Matters

The filing documents the plea-stage findings supporting acceptance of Escareno-Anguiano’s guilty plea while leaving final acceptance, entry of judgment, and sentencing to the presiding district judge. Parties have 14 days to object to the findings and recommendation.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top