Reported / Citable
Background
Jose Cirilo Leyva-Medina was indicted on one count of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). On July 15, 2026, he appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty to that charge.
Leyva-Medina consented to entering his plea before a magistrate judge, subject to the presiding district judge’s final approval and sentencing. The magistrate judge conducted the plea colloquy required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Leyva-Medina was competent and that his plea was free, knowing, and voluntary. The judge also found that Leyva-Medina understood the charge, his trial rights, the plea’s immigration consequences, the potential penalties, and the advisory role of the Sentencing Guidelines.
After finding that the plea was not induced by promises, threats, or force and that a factual basis supported it, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report itself did not finally accept the plea or impose a sentence.
Key Takeaways
- Leyva-Medina pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1).
- The magistrate judge found that the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied and that the plea was knowing and voluntary.
- Acceptance of the plea, entry of judgment, and sentencing remained for the district judge.
Why It Matters
The report documents the procedural safeguards required before a federal guilty plea may be accepted, including confirmation that the defendant understands the surrendered trial rights, possible punishment, immigration consequences, and sentencing process.
Because this was a report and recommendation rather than a final judgment, its immediate effect was to place the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation before the district judge. Objections filed before sentencing could affect district-court review, while failure to object could limit later review.