Reported / Citable
Background
Jose Emmanuel Macias-Acosta was charged with Count One: illegal re-entry into the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. On June 11, 2026, the defendant appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters with counsel present to enter a guilty plea. The magistrate conducted the required Rule 11 colloquy to ensure the defendant’s understanding of his rights and the nature of his plea.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge found that the defendant, with the advice of counsel, understood the nature of the charges and the penalties he faced. The defendant freely and voluntarily waived his constitutional and statutory rights and entered a guilty plea to Count One without a plea agreement. The court determined the defendant was competent to enter the plea and that there was a sufficient factual basis for it.
The magistrate recommended that the defendant’s guilty plea be ACCEPTED and that a judgment of guilty be entered. The case was referred to Chief United States District Judge Alia Moses for sentencing. The defendant was advised that he may be subject to restitution.
Key Takeaways
- The defendant pled guilty to illegal re-entry into the United States without a plea agreement
- The magistrate found the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent under Rule 11
- Sentencing will be conducted by the presiding District Judge
- Parties have 14 days to file objections; failure to object bars de novo review and certain appellate claims
Why It Matters
This matter represents a felony conviction for illegal re-entry, a serious criminal offense under immigration law. The magistrate’s acceptance of the guilty plea concludes the factual dispute and moves the case to the sentencing phase, where the District Judge will determine the appropriate punishment.
The procedural posture is important: this is a magistrate judge’s recommendation requiring approval by the District Judge. Parties must file timely objections within 14 days of receipt to preserve appellate rights; failure to object results in waiver of de novo review and limits appellate challenges to plain error review only.