Reported / Citable
Background
Domingo De jesus Ruballos-Medina appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge 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 that he could have the district judge take his plea, Ruballos-Medina consented to proceed 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 Ruballos-Medina understood the charge, possible penalties, and the constitutional and statutory rights he was waiving. The judge also found that the plea was knowing and voluntary, that Ruballos-Medina was competent to plead guilty, and that the plea had a sufficient factual basis.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge 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
- Ruballos-Medina pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11’s requirements and was supported by an adequate factual basis.
- The recommendation does not impose sentence; sentencing remains for the presiding district judge.
Why It Matters
The findings document the procedural safeguards required before a federal court accepts a felony guilty plea, including competency, voluntariness, an understanding of the charge and penalties, waiver of rights, and a sufficient factual basis.
The recommendation also preserves the district judge’s role in accepting the plea and conducting sentencing, while notifying the parties that failure to object timely may limit later review.