Reported / Citable
Background
Jorge Roberto Lopez-Ceron was charged with illegal reentry into the United States in Count One of the indictment. The case was referred by general order to a U.S. magistrate judge to take Lopez-Ceron’s felony guilty plea under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).
Lopez-Ceron and his counsel appeared before the magistrate judge on July 7, 2026. After being advised of his right to have the district judge take his plea and receiving the admonishments required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, Lopez-Ceron consented to proceed before the magistrate judge and pleaded guilty without a plea agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Lopez-Ceron understood the charge, potential penalties, and the rights he was waiving; entered the plea freely and voluntarily; was competent to plead guilty; and admitted a sufficient factual basis for the plea. The magistrate judge also found him guilty of the charge and noted his acknowledgment that he could be subject to restitution.
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. The parties may file written objections within 14 days after receiving the findings and recommendation; failure to do so may limit district-court and appellate review as described in the opinion.
Key Takeaways
- Lopez-Ceron 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.
- The recommendation calls for acceptance of the plea and entry of judgment, while sentencing remains for the presiding district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents the Rule 11 findings necessary to support acceptance of Lopez-Ceron’s felony guilty plea. It also preserves the district judge’s role in accepting the recommendation and imposing sentence.
Any objections must be filed within 14 days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation to preserve the scope of further review identified in the opinion.