Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Gonzales-Mejia — Magistrate judge recommended accepting an illegal-reentry guilty plea

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Wilson Moises Gonzales-Mejia
Court
U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
Judge
JOSEPH A CORDOVA
Date Decided
July 1, 2026
Docket No.
2:26-cr-00846
Topics
Illegal Reentry; Guilty Plea; Rule 11

Background

Wilson Moises Gonzales-Mejia appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge to enter a felony guilty plea. He consented to having the magistrate judge conduct the plea proceeding, while sentencing remained for the presiding district judge.

After receiving the required Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 admonishments, Gonzales-Mejia pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment, which charged illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Gonzales-Mejia understood the charge, possible penalties, and the constitutional and statutory rights he was waiving. The judge also found that he was competent, that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and that a sufficient factual basis supported it.

The magistrate judge found Gonzales-Mejia guilty of the charge to which he pleaded and recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation was not the district court’s final acceptance of the plea, and the case was referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing.

Key Takeaways

  • Gonzales-Mejia pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, competent, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
  • The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the plea, with sentencing reserved for the district judge.

Why It Matters

The recommendation documents the Rule 11 findings necessary for the district judge to accept Gonzales-Mejia’s felony guilty plea. It also advises the parties that failure to object within 14 days may limit district-court and appellate review of the unobjected-to findings and legal conclusions.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top