Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Baltazar-Lopez — Magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Nemesio Baltazar-Lopez
Court
U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
Judge
MATTHEW H. WATTERS
Date Decided
2026-07-08
Docket No.
2:26-cr-01033
Topics
Illegal Reentry; Guilty Plea; Rule 11

Background

Nemesio Baltazar-Lopez appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge on July 8, 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, Baltazar-Lopez consented to proceed 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 Baltazar-Lopez understood the charge, potential penalties, and rights he was waiving; entered the plea freely and voluntarily; was competent to plead guilty; and admitted facts sufficient to support the plea. The magistrate judge also noted that Baltazar-Lopez acknowledged he could be subject to restitution.

Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The case 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

  • Baltazar-Lopez 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 remains subject to review by the district judge, who will conduct sentencing.

Why It Matters

The filing documents the Rule 11 findings supporting Baltazar-Lopez’s guilty plea and recommends its formal acceptance. It does not impose a sentence; that responsibility remains with the presiding district judge.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top