Reported / Citable
Background
Reynaldo Ramirez-Portillo, also known as Victor Alfonso Ramirez-Portillo, appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge to enter a felony guilty plea. The matter had been referred under a general order for the magistrate judge to conduct the plea proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).
After being advised that he had the right to have a district judge take his plea, Ramirez-Portillo consented to proceeding before the magistrate judge. He then pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment, which charged illegal reentry into the United States.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Ramirez-Portillo understood the charge, potential penalties, and the constitutional and statutory rights he was waiving. The judge further found that Ramirez-Portillo was competent, that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and that a sufficient factual basis supported the plea.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge found Ramirez-Portillo 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 given 14 days to object to the findings and recommendation.
Key Takeaways
- Ramirez-Portillo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, competent, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
- The recommendation remains subject to the district judge’s acceptance, with sentencing reserved for the district judge.
Why It Matters
The filing records the Rule 11 findings required before a federal felony guilty plea may be accepted. It also reflects the magistrate judge’s limited role: conducting the consented-to plea proceeding and recommending acceptance while leaving final acceptance and sentencing to the district judge.