Reported / Citable
Background
Maira Eloisa Sagastume-Mena 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 her that she could have her plea taken by a district judge and conducted the Rule 11 colloquy.
Sagastume-Mena consented to having the magistrate judge take her plea. She pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment, charging illegal reentry into the United States. Sentencing was reserved for the presiding district judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Sagastume-Mena understood the charge, penalties, and her constitutional and statutory rights; that she knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights; and that she was competent to plead guilty. The court also found that the plea was voluntary and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge found Sagastume-Mena guilty of the charged offense and recommended that the district court accept her guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation also noted that she may be subject to restitution and referred the case to the district judge for sentencing.
Key Takeaways
- The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found the Rule 11 requirements satisfied, including competency, voluntariness, and a factual basis.
- The ruling is a recommendation: the district judge must decide whether to accept the plea and will conduct sentencing.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the magistrate-judge role in felony plea proceedings when the defendant consents. It does not impose sentence or finally accept the plea; instead, it creates proposed findings subject to the parties’ objection period and district-court review.