Reported / Citable
Background
Edison Geovanni Cayambe-Urcuango appeared with counsel before Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters for a felony guilty-plea proceeding referred under a general order. The magistrate judge advised him that he could have the plea taken by a district judge and gave the Rule 11 admonishments.
Cayambe-Urcuango pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment charging illegal reentry into the United States. Sentencing was reserved for the presiding district judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Cayambe-Urcuango knowingly and voluntarily consented to the magistrate judge’s taking of his plea; understood the charge, possible penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; and voluntarily waived those rights.
The magistrate judge further found Cayambe-Urcuango competent, concluded that a sufficient factual basis supported the plea, and found him guilty of the offense to which he pleaded. The report recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry without a plea agreement.
- The magistrate judge concluded that the Rule 11 plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.
- The filing is a recommendation; the district judge remains responsible for accepting the plea and imposing sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the magistrate-judge plea procedure in federal criminal cases: after the defendant consents and receives Rule 11 advisements, the magistrate judge may make findings and recommend acceptance, while the district judge retains the final decision and sentencing authority.
The parties had 14 days to object to the proposed findings and recommendation.