Reported / Citable
Background
William Vladimir Gramajo-Torres appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge and pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment, which charged illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
Gramajo-Torres consented to enter his plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The magistrate judge conducted the plea proceeding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Gramajo-Torres was competent and that his plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The judge also found that Gramajo-Torres understood the charge, his trial rights, the immigration consequences of pleading guilty, the possible penalties, and the advisory role of the Sentencing Guidelines.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report and recommendation did not itself finally accept the plea or impose sentence.
Key Takeaways
- The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- The magistrate judge found compliance with Rule 11, including a voluntary plea and an adequate factual basis.
- The report warned that failure to file written objections before sentencing may bar de novo determination by the district judge and would bar appellate review of factual findings later accepted or adopted by that judge.
Why It Matters
The report documents the Rule 11 safeguards used to ensure that a criminal defendant understands the rights, consequences, and sentencing framework associated with a guilty plea.
Because the ruling is a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the presiding district judge retains responsibility for final approval of the plea, entry of judgment, and sentencing.