Reported / Citable
Background
Pascual Lopez-Perez was charged in Count One of an indictment with illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty under a plea agreement.
Lopez-Perez consented to entering his plea before the magistrate judge, with final approval and sentencing reserved for the presiding district judge. The plea agreement included a waiver of his right to appeal or collaterally attack the conviction or sentence.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez found that Lopez-Perez was competent and that his guilty plea was free, knowing, and voluntary. The court concluded that he understood the charge, the immigration consequences of pleading guilty, the possible penalties, the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the trial rights he was giving up.
The magistrate judge also found that the plea was not induced by undisclosed promises, threats, force, or threats of force, and that a factual basis supported the plea. The judge recommended that the district judge accept the plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- This was a report and recommendation, not the district judge’s final acceptance of the plea or sentencing decision.
- The magistrate judge found the Rule 11 plea colloquy adequate and the plea voluntary and supported by a factual basis.
- The report warns that failing to submit written objections before sentencing may bar de novo review and appellate review of factual findings later adopted by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation advances the illegal-reentry prosecution to final action by the district judge. It also preserves the procedural significance of timely objections: the parties must object before sentencing if they seek district-court reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s factual findings or appellate review of findings ultimately adopted.