Reported / Citable
Background
Rogelio Lopez-Penaloza appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters for a felony guilty-plea proceeding. The case had been referred under a general order for the magistrate judge to take the plea.
After being advised of his right to have a district judge take the plea and receiving the required Rule 11 admonishments, Lopez-Penaloza pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment, illegal reentry into the United States. Sentencing was reserved for the presiding district judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Lopez-Penaloza knowingly, freely, and voluntarily waived his constitutional and statutory rights; understood the charge and potential penalties; and was competent to plead guilty. The magistrate judge also found a sufficient factual basis for the plea.
Accordingly, the magistrate judge found Lopez-Penaloza guilty of the charge to which he pleaded and recommended that the district court accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation remained subject to objections and district-court review.
Key Takeaways
- Lopez-Penaloza pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to illegal reentry.
- The magistrate judge concluded that the Rule 11 plea colloquy supported a knowing and voluntary plea.
- The filing is a findings-and-recommendation document; the district judge retains responsibility for accepting the plea and imposing sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the magistrate-judge role in felony plea proceedings: after the defendant consents and the court completes the Rule 11 inquiry, the magistrate judge may recommend acceptance, while the district judge retains final authority over the plea and sentencing.
Any party seeking de novo review must file timely written objections; unobjected-to findings may be reviewed on appeal only for plain error if accepted by the district court.