Reported / Citable
Background
Santiago Bacab-Moen was charged in Count One of the indictment with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement.
Bacab-Moen consented to enter his plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. During the plea proceeding, the magistrate judge gave the admonishments required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Bacab-Moen was competent and that his plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The judge also found that Bacab-Moen understood the charge, possible penalties, immigration consequences, trial rights, advisory Sentencing Guidelines, and the plea agreement.
The magistrate judge further found that Bacab-Moen understood the agreement’s waiver of his rights to appeal or collaterally attack the conviction or sentence and that he could not withdraw his plea merely because the sentencing court declined to apply a requested or recommended adjustment. Based on those findings, the magistrate 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 or a sentencing decision.
- The magistrate judge concluded that the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied and that the guilty plea was competent, knowing, voluntary, and factually supported.
- Bacab-Moen acknowledged the plea’s immigration consequences and its waiver of appellate and collateral-review rights.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents the procedural safeguards supporting Bacab-Moen’s guilty plea and provides the basis on which the district judge may formally accept it. It also preserves a record that he understood the plea agreement’s consequences, including its immigration effects and restrictions on later review.
The report warns that failure to object before sentencing may bar de novo review by the district judge and appellate review of factual findings that the district judge accepts or adopts.