Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Medrano-Martinez — Magistrate judge recommends accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Manuel Salvador Medrano-Martinez
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division
Judge
JOSEPH A CORDOVA
Date Decided
2026-07-02
Docket No.
2:26-cr-01083
Topics
Illegal Reentry, Guilty Plea, Rule 11

Background

Manuel Salvador Medrano-Martinez was charged with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The matter was referred to a U.S. magistrate judge to take his felony guilty plea.

Medrano-Martinez appeared with counsel on July 2, 2026, consented to have the magistrate judge take his plea, and pleaded guilty to Count One without a plea agreement. The magistrate judge advised him of his rights and the consequences of pleading guilty under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Medrano-Martinez understood the charge, possible penalties, and the rights he was waiving. The judge also found that he was competent, that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and that a sufficient factual basis supported it.

The magistrate judge found Medrano-Martinez guilty of the charge to which he pleaded and recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The case was referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing, and the parties were notified that they had 14 days to object to the findings and recommendation.

Key Takeaways

  • Medrano-Martinez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, competent, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
  • The recommendation remains subject to the district judge’s review, with sentencing to be conducted by the district judge.

Why It Matters

The recommendation records compliance with Rule 11 and clears the guilty plea for consideration by the presiding district judge. It also preserves the parties’ opportunity to object before the recommendation is accepted and judgment is entered.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top