Reported / Citable
Background
Eduardo Pascual-Simon was charged by indictment in the Western District of Texas with illegal reentry into the United States after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. On June 22, 2026, Pascual-Simon appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda with counsel and entered a plea of guilty to Count One of the indictment pursuant to a plea agreement.
Before accepting the plea, the magistrate judge conducted a full Rule 11 colloquy as required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court admonished the defendant regarding his rights, the nature of the charge, applicable penalties, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines, and the immigration consequences of the plea. The defendant’s counsel confirmed they had explained the immigration consequences to him.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Castaneda found that Pascual-Simon’s guilty plea was entered freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, and that there was a factual basis to support it. The court further found that the defendant was competent, understood all rights he was waiving, and that the plea was not induced by threats or promises beyond those contained in the plea agreement.
The magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation to the presiding district judge recommending that the guilty plea be accepted and that a judgment of guilt be entered. Under the plea agreement, Pascual-Simon waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack the sentence to be imposed, and acknowledged that he could not withdraw his plea if the district court declined to follow any sentencing recommendations in the agreement.
Key Takeaways
- The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 following a Rule 11 plea colloquy before a magistrate judge in the El Paso Division of the Western District of Texas.
- The plea agreement includes a waiver of the defendant’s right to appeal or collaterally attack his sentence.
- Final acceptance of the plea and sentencing remain with the presiding U.S. District Judge; parties have an opportunity to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation prior to sentencing.
Why It Matters
This case reflects the routine but significant procedural posture of federal illegal reentry prosecutions under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, which remain among the most frequently charged federal offenses along the southern border. The El Paso Division of the Western District of Texas handles a substantial volume of such cases, and the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation process illustrates how federal courts delegate initial plea proceedings while reserving final judgment and sentencing authority to Article III district judges.
Defense counsel and practitioners should note the broad appellate and collateral-attack waiver embedded in the plea agreement, which will significantly limit post-sentencing avenues for relief. The notice accompanying the recommendation also highlights that failure to file timely written objections may bar both de novo district court review and appellate review of factual findings adopted by the district judge.