Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. Perez-Vigil — magistrate judge recommends accepting illegal-reentry guilty plea

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Michael Perez-Vigil
Court
U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
Judge
Joseph A. Cordova, United States Magistrate Judge
Date Decided
August 25, 2026
Docket No.
2:26-cr-01787
Topics
Illegal reentry; Guilty plea; Rule 11; Magistrate judge recommendation

Background

Michael Perez-Vigil appeared with counsel before Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova for a felony guilty-plea proceeding referred under a general order. The magistrate judge advised Perez-Vigil of his right to have the plea taken by a district judge and gave the required Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 admonishments.

Perez-Vigil consented to the magistrate judge’s taking of his plea and pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One: illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sentencing was reserved for the presiding district judge.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found that Perez-Vigil understood the charge, potential penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights; was competent to plead guilty; and entered his plea freely and voluntarily.

The magistrate judge also found a sufficient factual basis for the plea, found Perez-Vigil guilty of the charged offense, and recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation advised the parties that objections were due within 14 days.

Key Takeaways

  • Perez-Vigil pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
  • The magistrate judge found the Rule 11 requirements satisfied, including competency, voluntariness, and a factual basis.
  • The document is a recommendation to the district judge, not a final acceptance of the plea or sentencing decision.

Why It Matters

The recommendation preserves the district judge’s role in accepting the plea and imposing sentence while documenting that the plea colloquy met Rule 11 requirements. Parties must timely object to preserve de novo district-court review of the proposed findings and recommendation.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Scroll to Top