Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

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

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Saul MOZO-Perez
Court
U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
Judge
JOSEPH A CORDOVA
Date Decided
July 20, 2026
Docket No.
2:26-cr-01085
Topics
Illegal Reentry; Guilty Plea; Rule 11; Criminal Procedure

Background

Saul MOZO-Perez was charged with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The matter was referred by general order to a U.S. magistrate judge to take the felony guilty plea under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).

MOZO-Perez appeared with counsel and consented to have the magistrate judge take his plea. After receiving the required Rule 11 admonishments, he pleaded guilty to Count One without a plea agreement.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that MOZO-Perez understood the charge, potential penalties, and the constitutional and statutory rights he was waiving. The judge also found that the plea was knowing and voluntary, that MOZO-Perez was competent, and that a sufficient factual basis supported the plea.

Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the presiding district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The matter was referred to the district judge for sentencing, and the parties were advised that objections to the findings and recommendation were due within 14 days of receipt.

Key Takeaways

  • MOZO-Perez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11 and was supported by a sufficient factual basis.
  • The recommendation remained subject to review by the district judge, who would conduct sentencing.

Why It Matters

The recommendation illustrates the process by which a magistrate judge may conduct a felony plea proceeding with the defendant’s consent while leaving acceptance of the recommendation, entry of judgment, and sentencing to the district judge.

It also underscores the importance of timely objections: absent written objections, a party may lose de novo district-court review and face plain-error limitations on appellate review of accepted findings and conclusions.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top