Reported / Citable
Background
Jose Omar Vasquez-Almanza appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge on July 7, 2026, for a felony guilty-plea proceeding. The case had been referred to the magistrate judge under a general order.
After being advised that he could have the district judge take his plea, Vasquez-Almanza consented to proceeding before the magistrate judge. He 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 Vasquez-Almanza understood the charge, potential penalties, and the rights he was waiving. The judge also found that he was competent, that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and that a sufficient factual basis supported the plea.
The magistrate judge found Vasquez-Almanza guilty of the charge and 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 notified that objections to the findings and recommendation were due within 14 days of receipt.
Key Takeaways
- Vasquez-Almanza pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, factually supported, and entered by a competent defendant.
- The recommendation remained subject to review by the district judge, who would also conduct sentencing.
Why It Matters
The findings document the Rule 11 safeguards required before a federal felony guilty plea may be accepted, including confirmation that the defendant understands the charge, penalties, and waived rights.
The recommendation also preserves the district judge’s role in formally accepting the plea, entering judgment, and imposing sentence while giving the parties an opportunity to object.