Reported / Citable
Background
Jose Guadalupe Huerta-Godina was charged with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova for the acceptance of a felony guilty plea pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3).
On June 4, 2026, the defendant appeared in open court with counsel. The magistrate judge conducted the required colloquy, addressing the defendant personally and advising him of his rights, including the right to have the plea taken by the district judge rather than the magistrate judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that the defendant, with advice of counsel, knowingly and voluntarily consented to the guilty plea proceeding before the magistrate judge rather than the district judge. The defendant understood the nature of the charges and their penalties, understood his constitutional and statutory rights, and freely and voluntarily waived those rights.
The magistrate judge found that the defendant’s guilty plea to Count One (illegal reentry) was made freely and voluntarily, that the defendant was competent to enter the plea, and that there was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea. Accordingly, the magistrate judge found the defendant guilty of the charge and recommended acceptance of the guilty plea and entry of judgment of guilt. The case was referred to the district judge for sentencing, and the defendant was advised he may be subject to restitution.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 without a plea agreement.
- All Rule 11 requirements were satisfied: defendant understood charges, penalties, and rights; the plea was knowing and voluntary; and factual basis exists.
- Sentencing will be conducted by the district judge; this recommendation is subject to a 14-day objection period under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c).
- Restitution may be imposed as part of sentencing.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the procedural safeguards required for felony guilty pleas under Rule 11. The magistrate judge’s careful colloquy and findings protect the integrity of the plea by ensuring it was knowing and voluntary, which prevents later claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or constitutional violations on appeal.
The case also reflects the federal government’s enforcement of 8 U.S.C. § 1326, which penalizes reentry after deportation or removal. As an immigration crime, the conviction may have significant immigration consequences for the defendant beyond criminal sentencing.