Reported / Citable
Background
Alejandro Diaz was charged by indictment with violating Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1)/(b)(2), which prohibits illegal reentry of a previously deported alien. The case was referred to the U.S. Magistrate Judge for administration of the guilty plea and allocution under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
On June 18, 2026, Diaz appeared before the magistrate judge with counsel and signed written consent to plead guilty before the magistrate. An interpreter was present throughout the proceeding. Diaz did not enter into a written plea agreement; any agreements were stated on the record by the parties.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Diaz knowingly and voluntarily consented to the guilty plea proceeding, that he was fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, and that he was aware of the nature of the charges and consequences of his plea. The court determined the plea was supported by an independent basis in fact containing each essential element of the offense.
The magistrate judge specifically noted that Diaz had discussed with his attorney the adverse immigration consequences of pleading guilty to a felony and wished to proceed despite those consequences. Based on these findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the District Court accept Diaz’s guilty plea to Count One of the indictment.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant entered knowing and voluntary guilty plea to illegal reentry charge under 8 U.S.C. § 1326
- Sentencing range depends on defendant’s prior criminal history, from 2 to 20 years imprisonment
- Defendant was advised of and acknowledged the immigration consequences of the felony conviction
- The recommendation is subject to final approval and sentencing by the District Court
Why It Matters
This case exemplifies guilty plea proceedings in immigration-related criminal matters where the defendant waives trial rights. The record reflects compliance with Rule 11 requirements ensuring the plea was truly voluntary and knowing, including explicit advisement of collateral immigration consequences—a critical protection for non-citizen defendants.
The ultimate sentence remains to be determined by the District Court, which must accept or reject the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Parties have fourteen days to file written objections to the recommendation or lose the right to de novo review by the District Court.