Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Martin-Perez — magistrate judge recommends accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Angel Roman Martin-Perez
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division
Judge
Matthew H. Watters
Date Decided
August 7, 2026
Docket No.
DR:26-CR-02054(1)-EG
Topics
criminal procedure; guilty plea; illegal reentry; magistrate judge recommendation

Background

Angel Roman Martin-Perez appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters on August 6, 2026, for a felony guilty-plea proceeding. The matter had been referred under a general order for the magistrate judge to take the plea.

After receiving Rule 11 admonishments, Martin-Perez consented to having the magistrate judge take his plea. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment, charging illegal reentry into the United States. Sentencing remains for the presiding district judge.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Martin-Perez understood the charge, penalties, and rights he was waiving; that he was competent; and that his plea was knowing, free, and voluntary. The court also found a sufficient factual basis for the plea.

Judge Watters found Martin-Perez 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 is subject to objections within 14 days.

Key Takeaways

  • Martin-Perez pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to illegal reentry.
  • The magistrate judge found the Rule 11 requirements satisfied, including competence, voluntariness, and a factual basis.
  • The district judge must act on the recommendation and will conduct sentencing.

Why It Matters

This is a report and recommendation, not the district court’s final acceptance of the plea or sentencing decision. Unless timely objections are filed, the district court may accept the recommended findings, and unobjected-to findings generally face only plain-error review on appeal.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top