Reported / Citable
Background
Felix Joel Mendoza-Ortiz was charged with illegal re-entry into the United States in violation of federal law. On June 11, 2026, the defendant appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters in the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division, with counsel present. The magistrate conducted a Rule 11 colloquy, personally addressing the defendant to ensure the validity of any guilty plea.
The defendant consented to have his plea taken by the magistrate judge, with sentencing to be conducted by the presiding United States District Judge. Notably, there was no plea agreement in this case.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that the defendant understood the nature of the charges and penalties, understood his constitutional and statutory rights, and freely and voluntarily waived them. The defendant pled guilty to Count One, illegal re-entry into the United States. The magistrate concluded the plea was made freely and voluntarily and that the defendant was competent to enter the plea.
The magistrate found sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea and recommended that the defendant’s plea be accepted and that a judgment of guilt be entered against him. The defendant was advised he may be subject to restitution. The case was referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing.
Key Takeaways
- The defendant pled guilty to illegal re-entry without any plea agreement
- The magistrate judge found the plea was knowing, voluntary, and competent after conducting a thorough Rule 11 colloquy
- There was sufficient factual basis for the conviction
- Sentencing remains pending before the district judge
Why It Matters
This case reflects the standard federal criminal procedure for accepting guilty pleas in immigration-related offenses. Illegal re-entry prosecutions are among the most common federal charges prosecuted in border districts. The magistrate’s detailed findings ensure constitutional compliance and protect the conviction from appellate challenges based on the validity of the plea.
The 14-day objection period noted in the order allows the parties to seek de novo review by the district judge before the plea is formally accepted, preserving appellate rights if objections are timely filed.