Reported / Citable
Background
Edwin Estuardo Osorio-Urizar appeared with counsel for a guilty-plea hearing on Count One of the indictment. That count charged illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
After Rule 11 admonishments, Osorio-Urizar pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. He consented to the plea proceeding before a magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Miguel A. Torres found that Osorio-Urizar understood the charge, the rights he was giving up, the immigration consequences, the possible penalties, the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the plea agreement’s appellate- and collateral-review waiver.
The magistrate judge further found that the plea was competent, knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. He recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The report and recommendation does not itself finally accept the plea or impose sentence; those matters remain for the district judge.
- The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- Written objections filed before sentencing are necessary to preserve de novo review and appellate review of factual findings later accepted or adopted by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The ruling documents a Rule 11 plea colloquy and places the case before the district judge for final plea acceptance and sentencing. It also underscores that a defendant’s plea-agreement waiver and immigration consequences must be understood before the plea may be recommended for acceptance.