Reported / Citable
Background
Adrian Romero-Ortega appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters for a felony guilty-plea proceeding referred under a general order. The magistrate judge advised Romero-Ortega that he could have his plea taken by a district judge and gave the required Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 admonitions.
Romero-Ortega, with counsel’s advice, consented to the magistrate judge’s taking of his plea. He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment, charging illegal reentry into the United States. Sentencing remains for the presiding district judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Romero-Ortega understood the charge, potential penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; that he voluntarily waived those rights; and that he was competent to plead guilty. The court further found the plea voluntary and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge found Romero-Ortega guilty of the offense to which he pleaded and recommended that the district court accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation also noted that Romero-Ortega may be subject to restitution.
Key Takeaways
- The defendant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to illegal reentry.
- The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the plea after conducting a Rule 11 colloquy.
- Parties have 14 days to object; absent objections, the district court need not conduct de novo review and appellate review is generally limited to plain error.
Why It Matters
This is a guilty-plea recommendation, not a final sentencing decision. It illustrates the role of a magistrate judge in conducting a felony plea hearing with the defendant’s consent while leaving acceptance of the recommendation and sentencing to the district judge.