Reported / Citable
Background
Noe Misael Cruz-Moreno was charged with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. On June 18, 2026, he appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova with counsel and entered a guilty plea to Count One of the indictment without a plea agreement.
The magistrate judge took the plea personally and conducted a Rule 11 colloquy to ensure the defendant understood the nature of the charges, penalties, and constitutional rights he was waiving. The defendant was advised of his right to have the plea taken by the district judge but consented to the magistrate’s taking of the plea, with sentencing to follow before District Judge Ernest Gonzalez.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Cruz-Moreno understood the charges and penalties, knowingly and voluntarily waived his constitutional and statutory rights, and entered his guilty plea freely and voluntarily. The magistrate further found Cruz-Moreno competent to enter the plea and determined there was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea.
Based on these findings, the magistrate recommended that the guilty plea be accepted and that a judgment of guilt be entered against the defendant. The magistrate noted that Cruz-Moreno may be subject to restitution. The case was referred to District Judge Gonzalez for sentencing, with a 14-day window for parties to file objections to the magistrate’s recommendations before de novo review is barred.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea bargain
- Magistrate judge found the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered in compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11
- Sentencing remains pending before the district judge
Why It Matters
Illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. § 1326) is a felony that carries substantial prison time, particularly for defendants with prior convictions. This routine guilty plea acceptance ensures procedural regularity and creates a record that the defendant’s constitutional protections were respected during the plea process—a critical safeguard against later claims of ineffective assistance or involuntariness that might undermine the conviction.