Reported / Citable
Background
Esteban Lugo-Perez appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez and pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment, which charged illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He consented to enter the plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge.
After conducting the plea proceeding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the magistrate judge found that Lugo-Perez understood the charge, his trial rights, the immigration consequences of pleading guilty, the possible penalties, and the advisory role of the Sentencing Guidelines. The court also found that he was competent and that no promises, threats, or force induced the plea.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Lugo-Perez entered his guilty plea freely, knowingly, and voluntarily and that a factual basis supported the plea. The court further found that he understood that acceptance of the plea would eliminate the need for a trial and that the sentencing court would consider the applicable Guidelines and the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept Lugo-Perez’s guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report did not itself finally accept the plea or impose a sentence.
Key Takeaways
- Lugo-Perez pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, competent, and supported by a factual basis.
- Final acceptance of the plea, entry of judgment, and sentencing remain for the presiding district judge.
Why It Matters
The report documents the Rule 11 safeguards used to confirm that Lugo-Perez understood the charge, waived his trial rights knowingly, and entered a voluntary plea. It also preserves the district judge’s authority to make the final decision on accepting the plea and entering judgment.
The notice warns that failing to file written objections before sentencing may bar de novo review by the district judge and appellate review of factual findings later accepted or adopted by that judge.