Reported / Citable
Background
Alexander Francisco Tellez-Gonzalez appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge after the case was referred for the taking of a felony guilty plea. The magistrate judge advised him that he had the right to have his plea taken by the district judge and provided the admonishments required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
Tellez-Gonzalez consented to the magistrate judge taking his plea and pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment: illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sentencing remained for the presiding district judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Tellez-Gonzalez understood the charge, possible penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; knowingly waived those rights; and entered the plea freely and voluntarily. The judge also found him competent, determined that the plea had a sufficient factual basis, found him guilty of the charge to which he pleaded, and noted his acknowledgment that restitution could apply.
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report advised that failure to submit written objections within 14 days would bar de novo district-court review of the findings and recommendations and generally limit appellate challenges to plain-error review.
Key Takeaways
- Tellez-Gonzalez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, competent, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.
- The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the plea and referred the case to the district judge for sentencing.
Why It Matters
The report documents the Rule 11 safeguards supporting the validity of the felony guilty plea while preserving the district judge’s authority to determine whether to accept the recommendation and to conduct sentencing.
It also underscores the procedural importance of timely objections: failing to object affects the availability of de novo review in the district court and generally confines later appellate challenges to plain-error review.