Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Ramos-Chacon — Magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Roman Ramos-Chacon a/k/a Roman Ramos
Court
U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
Judge
MATTHEW H. WATTERS
Date Decided
July 9, 2026
Docket No.
2:26-cr-01513
Topics
Illegal Reentry, Guilty Plea, Rule 11, Magistrate Judge

Background

Roman Ramos-Chacon, also known as Roman Ramos, was charged in Count One of the indictment with illegal reentry into the United States. The case was referred by general order to U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters to take Ramos-Chacon’s felony guilty plea.

At a July 9, 2026 hearing, Ramos-Chacon appeared with counsel and consented to have the magistrate judge take his plea, while acknowledging that sentencing would be conducted by the presiding district judge. After receiving the required Rule 11 admonishments, Ramos-Chacon pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Ramos-Chacon understood the charge, possible penalties, and the constitutional and statutory rights he was waiving. The judge also found that Ramos-Chacon was competent, that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and that a sufficient factual basis supported it.

The magistrate judge found Ramos-Chacon guilty of the charge to which he pleaded and 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.

Key Takeaways

  • Ramos-Chacon 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 remains subject to district-court review, and the parties were given 14 days to file written objections.

Why It Matters

The findings document the procedural safeguards required before a federal felony guilty plea may be accepted, including confirmation of the defendant’s competence, understanding, voluntariness, and waiver of rights.

Because this was a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, acceptance of the plea and entry of judgment were recommended to the district judge, who also retained responsibility for sentencing.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top