Reported / Citable
Background
Jose Natividad Nieto-Moreno was charged in Count One of an indictment with unlawful reentry under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1) or (2). The district court referred administration of his guilty plea and allocution to a U.S. magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
Nieto-Moreno signed a written consent to plead before the magistrate judge and entered a guilty plea without a written plea agreement. An interpreter assisted him during the proceeding, and any oral agreements between the parties were placed on the record.
The Court’s Holding
After conducting the plea proceeding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, Magistrate Judge Ronald C. Griffin found that Nieto-Moreno knowingly and voluntarily consented to the proceeding before a magistrate judge, subject to the district judge’s final approval and imposition of sentence.
The magistrate judge also found that Nieto-Moreno was competent, understood the charge and the consequences of pleading guilty, and entered a knowing and voluntary plea supported by an independent factual basis establishing each essential element of the offense. The judge therefore recommended that the district court accept the plea and finally adjudge Nieto-Moreno guilty.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling is a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, not a final judgment accepting the plea or imposing sentence.
- Nieto-Moreno pleaded guilty to unlawful reentry without a written plea agreement after a Rule 11 colloquy conducted with an interpreter.
- The parties had 14 days after service to file specific written objections; failure to do so could limit district-court and appellate review.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents the procedural safeguards required when a felony defendant consents to enter a guilty plea before a magistrate judge. It confirms competency, voluntariness, an understanding of the charge and potential consequences, and an adequate factual basis before the district judge decides whether to accept the plea.