Reported / Citable
Background
Cristian Geovanny Diaz Umaginga appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova for a felony guilty-plea proceeding referred under a general order. The magistrate judge advised Diaz Umaginga that he could have the plea taken by the district judge and conducted the Rule 11 colloquy.
Diaz Umaginga, advised by counsel, consented to the magistrate judge’s taking of the plea. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment, illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sentencing was reserved for the presiding district judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Diaz Umaginga understood the charge, potential penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights; was competent to plead; and entered his plea freely and voluntarily. The magistrate judge also found a sufficient factual basis for the plea.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge found Diaz Umaginga guilty of the charged offense and recommended that the district court accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report advised the parties that objections must be filed within 14 days and that failure to object limits later review.
Key Takeaways
- Diaz Umaginga pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- The magistrate judge found the Rule 11 requirements satisfied, including competency, voluntariness, and a factual basis.
- The disposition was a recommendation to the district judge; sentencing remained for the presiding district judge.
Why It Matters
The report illustrates the magistrate-judge plea process in a felony case: with the defendant’s consent, a magistrate judge may conduct the plea proceeding and recommend acceptance, while the district judge retains responsibility for final acceptance and sentencing.