Reported / Citable
Background
Cesar Humberto Galdamez-Rubi appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge to enter a felony guilty plea. The matter had been referred to the magistrate judge for the plea proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).
After being advised that he could have the district judge take his plea, Galdamez-Rubi consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. He pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment, which charged illegal reentry into the United States.
The Court’s Holding
Following the Rule 11 colloquy, the magistrate judge found that Galdamez-Rubi understood the charge, potential penalties, and the rights he was waiving. The judge also found that the plea was knowing and voluntary, that Galdamez-Rubi was competent to plead guilty, and that the plea had a sufficient factual basis.
The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The matter was referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing, and the parties were given 14 days to object to the findings and recommendation.
Key Takeaways
- Galdamez-Rubi pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11 and was supported by a sufficient factual basis.
- The recommendation is subject to review by the district judge, who will conduct sentencing.
Why It Matters
The filing documents the procedural findings required before a federal felony guilty plea may be accepted, including competency, voluntariness, an informed waiver of rights, and a sufficient factual basis.
It is a report and recommendation rather than a final sentencing decision: the district judge remains responsible for accepting the recommendation, entering judgment, and imposing sentence.