Reported / Citable
Background
Miguel Angel Ramirez-Godinez appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge on July 7, 2026, 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, Ramirez-Godinez consented to proceeding 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
The magistrate judge found that Ramirez-Godinez understood the charge, potential penalties, and rights he was waiving; was competent to plead guilty; and entered the plea freely and voluntarily. The judge also found a sufficient factual basis for the plea and found Ramirez-Godinez guilty of the charge to which he pleaded.
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
- Ramirez-Godinez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, factually supported, and entered by a competent defendant.
- The recommendation leaves acceptance of the plea, entry of judgment, and sentencing to the presiding district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents compliance with Rule 11’s safeguards before a felony guilty plea is presented to the district judge for acceptance. It also preserves the parties’ opportunity to seek district-court review by filing timely objections.