Reported / Citable
Background
David Santizo-Bautista appeared with counsel for a plea hearing before a magistrate judge. He pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment, charging false personation in immigration matters under 18 U.S.C. § 1546.
Santizo-Bautista consented to entering the plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge.
The Court’s Holding
After conducting the required Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 admonishments, Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda found that Santizo-Bautista understood his rights, the charge, the possible penalties, the immigration consequences, and the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines.
The magistrate judge further found that the defendant was competent and that his plea was knowing, voluntary, free from threats or promises, and supported by a factual basis. The judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling is a report and recommendation, not the district judge’s final acceptance of the plea.
- The magistrate judge found full Rule 11 compliance and a factual basis for the plea.
- Written objections before sentencing may be necessary to preserve review of factual findings adopted by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation clears the way for the district judge to accept Santizo-Bautista’s plea and proceed to sentencing. It also underscores that a defendant’s consent permits a magistrate judge to conduct the plea proceeding, while final approval and sentencing remain with the district judge.