Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Macias-Gutierrez — Magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Dhalia Jaqueline Macias-Gutierrez, also known as Cesar Macias-Gutierrez
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division
Judge
Miguel A. Torres, United States Magistrate Judge
Date Decided
August 10, 2026
Docket No.
EP:26-CR-01893(1)-LS
Topics
Illegal Reentry; Guilty Plea; Rule 11; Immigration

Background

Dhalia Jaqueline Macias-Gutierrez, also known as Cesar Macias-Gutierrez, was indicted for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and 1326(b)(1). On August 10, 2026, Macias-Gutierrez appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Miguel A. Torres and pleaded guilty to the indictment.

Macias-Gutierrez consented to enter the plea before a magistrate judge, subject to the presiding district judge’s final approval and sentencing. Judge Torres conducted the plea colloquy required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Torres found that Macias-Gutierrez was competent and entered the plea freely, knowingly, and voluntarily. The magistrate judge further found that the defendant understood the charge, trial rights, immigration consequences, possible penalties, advisory Sentencing Guidelines, and sentencing factors, and that no promises, threats, or force induced the plea.

The magistrate judge also determined that a factual basis supported the guilty plea. Based on those findings, Judge Torres recommended that the district judge accept the plea and enter a judgment of guilt; the report itself did not finally accept the plea or impose a sentence.

Key Takeaways

  • The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and 1326(b)(1).
  • The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11 and was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.
  • Final acceptance of the plea and sentencing remain with the presiding district judge.

Why It Matters

The report documents the procedural safeguards used to ensure that a federal guilty plea is valid, including confirmation that the defendant understood the charge, waived trial rights, and appreciated the plea’s sentencing and immigration consequences.

Because the ruling is a report and recommendation, it represents an intermediate step rather than a final judgment. Failure to object before sentencing may limit district-court and appellate review of covered factual findings later adopted by the district judge.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top