Reported / Citable
Background
Karen Estefany Suarez-Hernandez appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge to enter a felony guilty plea. The matter had been referred to the magistrate judge under a general order for the taking of the plea.
After being advised that she could have the district judge take her plea, Suarez-Hernandez consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. She pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment, which charged illegal reentry into the United States.
The Court’s Holding
Following the plea colloquy, the magistrate judge found that Suarez-Hernandez understood the charge, potential penalties, and rights she was waiving; was competent to plead guilty; and entered the plea freely and voluntarily. The magistrate judge also found a sufficient factual basis for the plea and found her guilty of the charge.
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 notified that they had 14 days to object to the findings and recommendation.
Key Takeaways
- Suarez-Hernandez 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 findings document the Rule 11 safeguards supporting the validity of Suarez-Hernandez’s plea. They also clarify the procedural division of responsibility: the magistrate judge conducted the plea proceeding and issued a recommendation, while the district judge retains responsibility for accepting the plea and imposing sentence.