Reported / Citable
Background
Enrique Eleuterio Lopez-Rocha was charged with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Under a general referral order, the district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge to take Lopez-Rocha’s felony guilty plea.
On July 1, 2026, Lopez-Rocha appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph A Cordova. After being advised that he could have the district judge take his plea and receiving the required Rule 11 admonishments, Lopez-Rocha consented to proceed before the magistrate judge and pleaded guilty to Count One without a plea agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Lopez-Rocha understood the charge, potential penalties, and rights he was waiving; entered the plea freely and voluntarily; was competent to plead guilty; and admitted facts sufficient to support the plea. The magistrate judge also found Lopez-Rocha guilty of the charge to which he pleaded and noted his acknowledgment that restitution could apply.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation was not a final sentencing decision: the case was referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing, and the parties were given 14 days to object.
Key Takeaways
- Lopez-Rocha pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11, was knowing and voluntary, and had a sufficient factual basis.
- The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the plea; sentencing remained for the district judge.
Why It Matters
The findings document the procedural safeguards required before acceptance of a federal felony guilty plea, including confirmation of competency, voluntariness, understanding of the charge and penalties, waiver of rights, and a sufficient factual basis.
The filing is a report and recommendation rather than a final judgment by the district judge. Any party seeking de novo review of the proposed findings and conclusions was required to file timely written objections.