Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Chavez — magistrate judge recommends accepting guilty plea

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. (2) Andrew Xavier Chavez
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division
Judge
Joseph A. Cordova, United States Magistrate Judge
Date Decided
September 21, 2026
Docket No.
DR:26-CR-01428(2)-AM
Topics
Guilty plea; Alien transportation; Rule 11; Magistrate judge

Background

Andrew Xavier Chavez appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova for a felony guilty-plea proceeding referred under a general order. Chavez consented to having the magistrate judge take his plea, while sentencing remains for the presiding district judge.

Chavez pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to Count One: conspiracy to transport illegal aliens, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) and (B)(i).

The Court’s Holding

After personally addressing Chavez and giving the required Rule 11 admonishments, the magistrate judge found that Chavez understood the charge, penalties, and rights he was waiving. The court also found that the plea was knowing, free, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis, and that Chavez was competent to plead guilty.

The magistrate judge found Chavez guilty of the charged offense and recommended that the district court accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The matter was referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing.

Key Takeaways

  • Chavez consented to a magistrate judge conducting the felony plea hearing.
  • The magistrate judge found the Rule 11 requirements satisfied and a factual basis for the plea.
  • The recommendation is subject to objections within 14 days; sentencing remains with the district judge.

Why It Matters

The filing is a report and recommendation, not the district court’s final acceptance of the plea or sentencing decision. Absent timely objections, the district judge may adopt the recommendation, while unobjected-to findings generally receive only plain-error review on appeal.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top