Reported / Citable
Background
Claudio Celso Ubaldo Chen-Maquin was charged with Illegal Re-Entry, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. On July 6, 2026, the defendant appeared before the magistrate judge with counsel and entered a guilty plea to Count One of the Indictment pursuant to a Plea Agreement. The case arises in the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, which has jurisdiction over immigration-related federal crimes along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The defendant’s entry of the guilty plea followed full admonishment of his constitutional rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, including the right to plead not guilty, the right to trial by jury, the right to confront witnesses, and the right against self-incrimination. Defense counsel explained the immigration consequences of the plea.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge found that all requisite conditions for a valid guilty plea had been satisfied. The court found that the defendant understood: the waiver of the right to trial and jury; the nature of the charge and applicable maximum and minimum penalties; that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory; the Plea Agreement terms, including a waiver of appellate rights; and the court’s sentencing obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
The magistrate judge further found that the defendant is competent and that his plea was entered freely, knowingly, and voluntarily without inducement beyond those in the Plea Agreement. Based on these findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. Sentencing remains for determination by the district judge at a subsequent hearing.
Key Takeaways
- The defendant pleaded guilty to Illegal Re-Entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, a federal immigration crime.
- All Rule 11 requirements for a knowing and voluntary guilty plea were satisfied according to the magistrate judge’s findings.
- The defendant waived appellate rights as part of the Plea Agreement and understood the immigration consequences of the conviction.
- The district judge will determine sentencing with discretion to depart from advisory Sentencing Guidelines.
Why It Matters
Illegal re-entry cases are among the most frequently prosecuted federal crimes, particularly in border districts like El Paso. The magistrate judge’s structured analysis reflects the rigorous process by which federal courts ensure that guilty pleas—which account for the vast majority of federal criminal convictions—are entered knowingly and voluntarily with full understanding of consequences. The defendant’s explicit acknowledgment of immigration consequences is a critical safeguard in these cases, since conviction mandates deportation regardless of the sentence imposed.
The case now proceeds to sentencing before the district judge, who retains full discretion over the sentence within statutory limits. The Plea Agreement may contain recommendations, but the court is not bound by them, and the defendant’s waiver of appellate rights means limited opportunity to challenge the final sentence.