Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Ortiz-Hernandez — Magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea to alien-transport conspiracy

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Jose Adrian Ortiz-Hernandez
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Del Rio Division
Judge
Joseph A. Cordova, United States Magistrate Judge
Date Decided
August 24, 2026
Docket No.
2:26-cr-01675
Topics
Guilty Plea; Alien Transportation; Rule 11; Magistrate Judges

Background

Jose Adrian Ortiz-Hernandez appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova to enter a felony guilty plea. The matter had been referred to the magistrate judge under a general order for the taking of the plea.

After being advised of his right to have a district judge take the plea and receiving the admonishments required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, Ortiz-Hernandez pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment: conspiracy to transport illegal aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) and (B)(i).

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Ortiz-Hernandez consented, with counsel’s advice, to having the magistrate judge take his plea; understood the charge, potential penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; and freely and voluntarily waived those rights. The court also found him competent and determined that the plea was voluntary and supported by a sufficient factual basis.

The magistrate judge found Ortiz-Hernandez 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 matter was referred to the presiding district judge for sentencing, and the parties were notified that objections to the findings and recommendation were due within 14 days of receipt.

Key Takeaways

  • Ortiz-Hernandez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport illegal aliens without a plea agreement.
  • The magistrate judge found that the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied and that the plea was knowing, voluntary, competent, and factually supported.
  • The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the plea and entry of judgment, while sentencing remained for the presiding district judge.

Why It Matters

The recommendation documents the procedural findings necessary for a district judge to accept a felony guilty plea taken by a magistrate judge. It also preserves the distinction between the magistrate judge’s recommendation concerning acceptance of the plea and the district judge’s responsibility for sentencing.

Leave a Comment

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

Scroll to Top