Reported / Citable
Background
Dani Ismael RACANCOJ-Perez appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge on July 7, 2026, to enter a felony guilty plea. The matter had been referred to the magistrate judge for the plea proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).
After being advised of his right to have the district judge take the plea, Racancoj-Perez consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. He pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment, which charged illegal reentry into the United States.
The Court’s Holding
Following the Rule 11 colloquy, the magistrate judge found that Racancoj-Perez understood the charge, possible penalties, and the constitutional and statutory rights he was waiving. The judge also found that he was competent, that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and that the plea had a sufficient factual basis.
The magistrate judge found Racancoj-Perez guilty of the charge 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 given 14 days to object to the findings and recommendation.
Key Takeaways
- Racancoj-Perez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11 and was supported by a sufficient factual basis.
- The recommendation remains subject to review by the district judge, who will conduct sentencing.
Why It Matters
The findings document the procedural safeguards required before a federal felony guilty plea may be accepted, including confirmation that the defendant understands the charge, penalties, and waived rights.
The recommendation advances the case toward judgment and sentencing while preserving the parties’ opportunity to object and seek de novo district-court review of challenged findings.