Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Mazariegos-Perez — Magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Lisandro Baldemar Mazariegos-Perez
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division
Judge
Laura Enriquez, United States Magistrate Judge
Date Decided
September 14, 2026
Docket No.
EP:26-CR-02144(1)-KC
Topics
Illegal Reentry, Guilty Plea, Rule 11, Criminal Procedure

Background

Lisandro Baldemar Mazariegos-Perez was charged by indictment with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 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 administering the required Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 admonishments, the magistrate judge found that Mazariegos-Perez understood the charge, his trial rights, the possible penalties and immigration consequences, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, and the sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found Mazariegos-Perez competent to plead guilty and determined that his plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The court also found that the plea had not been induced by promises, threats, force, or threats of force.

Because acceptance of the plea remained subject to the district judge’s approval, the magistrate judge did not enter a final judgment of guilt. She recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.

Key Takeaways

  • Mazariegos-Perez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
  • The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11 and was knowing, voluntary, and factually supported.
  • The report is a recommendation; final acceptance of the plea and sentencing remain with the presiding district judge.

Why It Matters

The report documents the Rule 11 safeguards used to ensure that a criminal defendant understands the rights relinquished and the consequences of pleading guilty. It also illustrates the limited role of a magistrate judge when a defendant consents to a plea proceeding subject to the district judge’s final approval.

The parties were warned that failing to submit written objections before sentencing could bar de novo review by the district judge and appellate review of factual findings later accepted or adopted by that judge.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top