Reported / Citable
Background
Anthony Alvarado Perez appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge and pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to Count Two of the indictment. That count charged importation of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a).
Perez consented to entering his plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. During the Rule 11 proceeding, he was advised of the charge, possible penalties, trial rights, advisory Sentencing Guidelines, and sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The plea agreement included a waiver of Perez’s right to appeal or collaterally attack the sentence imposed by the district judge. Perez also acknowledged that he could not withdraw his plea if the court declined to apply recommended or requested sentencing adjustments in the agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found Perez competent and concluded that his plea was entered freely, knowingly, and voluntarily. The judge also found that no threats or undisclosed promises induced the plea and that a factual basis supported it.
The magistrate judge therefore recommended that the district judge accept Perez’s guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report and recommendation did not itself finally accept the plea, enter judgment, or impose a sentence.
The court warned that failure to file written objections before sentencing could bar de novo review by the district judge and appellate review of factual findings later accepted or adopted by the district judge.
Key Takeaways
- Perez pleaded guilty to importing a controlled substance under 21 U.S.C. § 952(a).
- The magistrate judge found that the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied and that the plea had a factual basis.
- Acceptance of the plea and entry of judgment remained subject to action by the presiding district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents the procedural safeguards used to determine whether Perez’s guilty plea was valid. Its findings address competency, voluntariness, knowledge of trial and sentencing consequences, and the factual basis for the plea.
The proceeding also highlights the practical significance of plea-agreement waivers and timely objections. Perez acknowledged broad limits on later challenges to his sentence, while the report warned that failing to object before sentencing could restrict further judicial review.