Reported / Citable
Background
Audencio Hernandez-Rodriguez appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment. That count charged illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
Hernandez-Rodriguez consented to enter his plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The magistrate judge conducted the Rule 11 plea colloquy.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Miguel A. Torres found that Hernandez-Rodriguez understood the charge, the rights he was giving up, the possible penalties, the immigration consequences, the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the plea agreement’s appeal and collateral-review waiver.
The magistrate judge further found that the plea was competent, knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The report therefore recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The report recommends acceptance of the plea; final approval and sentencing remain with the district judge.
- The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- Written objections before sentencing may be necessary to preserve de novo and appellate review of factual findings adopted by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation documents a completed Rule 11 plea proceeding and clears the case for the district judge’s consideration of plea acceptance and sentencing. It does not itself impose sentence or constitute the district judge’s final acceptance of the plea.