Reported / Citable
Background
Miguel Obed Felipe-Pancardo was charged in Count One with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A). With counsel’s advice, he consented to enter a felony guilty plea before a magistrate judge, subject to the district judge’s final approval and sentencing.
At a July 28, 2026 hearing, Felipe-Pancardo pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. The magistrate judge personally addressed him in open court, provided the required Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 admonishments, and determined that he understood them.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower found that Felipe-Pancardo understood the charge and its possible penalties, understood his constitutional and statutory rights and the effect of waiving them, and entered his plea freely and voluntarily. She also found that he was competent to plead guilty and that the plea had a factual basis.
The magistrate judge recommended that the district court accept the guilty plea and, after reviewing the presentence investigation report, enter a final judgment of guilt. The report and recommendation did not itself accept the plea, adjudicate guilt, or impose a sentence.
Key Takeaways
- Felipe-Pancardo pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance.
- The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11’s requirements, including voluntariness, competency, and a factual basis.
- Acceptance of the plea and entry of final judgment remain subject to action by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The report documents the procedural safeguards used when a magistrate judge conducts a felony plea hearing. Its findings support acceptance of the plea but remain recommendations subject to district-court review.
The parties have 14 days after service to file specific written objections. Failure to object may limit district-court and appellate review as described in the report.