Reported / Citable
Background
Arturo Escalante-Perez appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge on July 7, 2026, to enter a felony guilty plea. The case had been referred to the magistrate judge under a general order for the taking of the plea.
After being advised that he had the right to have a district judge take his plea, Escalante-Perez consented to the magistrate judge’s involvement and received the admonishments required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. 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 Escalante-Perez understood the charge, potential penalties, and rights he 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 noted that Escalante-Perez 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 matter 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
- Escalante-Perez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, competent, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
- Acceptance of the plea, entry of judgment, and sentencing remained before the presiding district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation records the Rule 11 findings needed for the district judge to accept Escalante-Perez’s felony guilty plea. It also preserves the parties’ opportunity to object before the district court acts on the recommendation.