Reported / Citable
Background
Francisco Martin Matias-Pascual was charged in Count One of the indictment with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On July 29, 2026, he appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez and consented to enter his guilty plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge.
After conducting the plea colloquy required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the magistrate judge found that Matias-Pascual understood the charge, his trial rights, the immigration consequences of pleading guilty, the potential penalties, and the advisory role of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court also found that he understood the sentencing court would consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found Matias-Pascual competent to plead guilty and determined that his plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The court further found that the plea was not induced by promises, threats, force, or threats of force.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report and recommendation did not itself finally accept the plea, enter judgment, or impose a sentence.
Key Takeaways
- Matias-Pascual pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- The magistrate judge found that the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied and that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and factually supported.
- Acceptance of the plea, entry of judgment, and sentencing remain subject to action by the presiding district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents the procedural safeguards applied before accepting a federal guilty plea, including confirmation that the defendant understands the rights relinquished, possible penalties, immigration consequences, and sentencing framework.
Because this was a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation rather than a final judgment, its immediate effect was to advise the district judge to accept the plea. The notice also warned that failure to object before sentencing could limit district-court and appellate review of covered findings.