Reported / Citable
Background
The case was referred by general order to Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters to take the defendant’s felony guilty plea. On July 6, 2026, Noe Ramirez Diaz and his counsel appeared before the magistrate judge.
After advising Diaz that he could have his plea taken by a district judge and giving the required Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 admonishments, the magistrate judge found that Diaz understood the charge, penalties, and rights he was waiving. Diaz pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment, charging smuggling goods from the United States.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Diaz knowingly and voluntarily consented to have the magistrate judge take his plea; was competent to plead guilty; and entered the plea freely and voluntarily with an adequate factual basis.
The magistrate judge found Diaz guilty of the charge to which he pleaded, noted his acknowledgment that restitution could be imposed and his consent to the government’s forfeiture demand, and recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. Sentencing was referred to the presiding district judge.
Key Takeaways
- The filing is a findings-and-recommendation order, not a final acceptance of the plea by the district judge.
- Diaz pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One for smuggling goods from the United States.
- The parties had 14 days to object to the recommendation.
Why It Matters
The recommendation moves the case toward judgment and sentencing while preserving the parties’ opportunity to seek district-court review through timely objections. If no effective objection is made and the recommendation is adopted, challenges to unobjected-to findings may be limited on appeal.