Reported / Citable
Background
Yobanni Hernandez-Pacheco appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez and pleaded guilty to an indictment charging illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2).
Hernandez-Pacheco consented to enter the plea before a 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
Judge Enriquez found that Hernandez-Pacheco was competent and that his plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The report states that he understood the charge, the rights he was waiving, the immigration consequences, the possible penalties, and the advisory role of the Sentencing Guidelines.
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 a sentence.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge found that the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied and that the plea was freely, knowingly, and voluntarily made.
- Hernandez-Pacheco understood that sentencing would account for the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
- The notice states that failure to file written objections before sentencing may bar de novo determination by the district judge and shall bar appellate review of factual findings accepted or adopted by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The report documents the procedural safeguards supporting Hernandez-Pacheco’s guilty plea while leaving final acceptance and sentencing to the district judge. It also alerts the parties to the specific consequences that may follow if they do not timely object to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation.