Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Gumecindo-Luis — magistrate judge recommends accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Crosoforo Gumecindo-Luis, a/k/a Crisoforo Gumecindo-Luis
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division
Judge
Matthew H. Watters, United States Magistrate Judge
Date Decided
August 4, 2026
Docket No.
2:26-cr-01263
Topics
Criminal procedure; Guilty pleas; Illegal reentry

Background

Crosoforo Gumecindo-Luis appeared with counsel before Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters for a felony guilty-plea proceeding referred under a general order. The magistrate judge advised him of his right to have the plea taken by a district judge and gave the required Rule 11 admonishments.

Gumecindo-Luis, with counsel’s advice, consented to proceeding before the magistrate judge. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment, charging illegal reentry into the United States.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Gumecindo-Luis understood the charge, potential penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; that he knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights; and that he was competent to plead guilty.

The magistrate judge also found a sufficient factual basis for the plea and found Gumecindo-Luis guilty of the charge to which he pleaded. The report recommends that the district judge accept the plea and enter a judgment of guilt; sentencing remains for the presiding district judge.

Key Takeaways

  • The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge concluded that the plea satisfied Rule 11’s voluntariness, competency, and factual-basis requirements.
  • Parties have 14 days to object to the recommendation.

Why It Matters

The filing is a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, not the district court’s final acceptance of the plea or sentencing decision. Absent timely objections, the recommendation may be accepted by the district judge subject to the stated limits on later review.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top