Reported / Citable
Background
Luis Manuel Collazo-Galvan was charged with one count of illegal re-entry into the United States in federal district court. On June 11, 2026, Collazo-Galvan appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters for the taking of his guilty plea. The defendant proceeded without a plea agreement—he entered a straight guilty plea to the single count without any negotiated resolution with the government.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Collazo-Galvan’s guilty plea was valid and complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Specifically, the court found that the defendant understood the nature of the charges and penalties, understood his constitutional and statutory rights, and freely and voluntarily waived those rights. The magistrate also found that the defendant is competent to enter a guilty plea and that there is sufficient factual basis supporting the plea.
The magistrate judge therefore recommended that the defendant’s guilty plea be accepted and that judgment of guilt be entered. The case was referred to the presiding District Judge (Chief Judge Alia Moses) for sentencing. The defendant was advised that he may be subject to restitution.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry without negotiating a plea agreement
- Magistrate found the plea knowing, voluntary, and based on competent understanding of rights and consequences
- Guilty verdict recommended pending District Judge acceptance and approval for sentencing phase
- Defendant remains subject to potential restitution obligations
Why It Matters
This case exemplifies federal enforcement of illegal re-entry statutes and the procedural requirements courts must follow when accepting guilty pleas in criminal cases. The detailed findings reflect Rule 11’s mandate that judges personally address defendants and establish on the record that pleas are knowing and voluntary, protecting defendants’ constitutional rights while ensuring the integrity of guilty plea convictions.