Reported / Citable
Background
Kevin Julian Garcia-Perez appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge on July 7, 2026, 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 he had the right to have a district judge take his plea, Garcia-Perez consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. He pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment, charging illegal reentry into the United States.
The Court’s Holding
Following the Rule 11 colloquy, the magistrate judge found that Garcia-Perez understood the charge, potential penalties, and rights he was waiving; that he was competent; and that his plea was knowing, free, and voluntary. The judge also found a sufficient factual basis for the plea and found Garcia-Perez guilty of the charge.
The magistrate judge recommended that the guilty plea be accepted and that a judgment of guilt be entered. The case was referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing, and the parties were advised that objections to the findings and recommendation were due within 14 days of receipt.
Key Takeaways
- Garcia-Perez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found the plea knowing and voluntary, found a sufficient factual basis, and found Garcia-Perez guilty.
- The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the plea and entry of judgment, while sentencing will be conducted by the presiding district judge.
Why It Matters
The findings document the Rule 11 safeguards supporting Garcia-Perez’s felony guilty plea and provide the basis for the recommended acceptance of that plea and entry of judgment. They also clarify the procedural division of responsibility: the magistrate judge took the plea, made findings, and issued a recommendation, while the presiding district judge will conduct sentencing.