Reported / Citable
Background
Juan Pacay-Pop appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment. That count charged illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
Pacay-Pop consented to entering the plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The magistrate judge conducted the plea colloquy required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Miguel A. Torres found that Pacay-Pop understood the charge, the rights he was giving up, the potential penalties, the immigration consequences, and the terms of his plea agreement, including its appeal and collateral-attack waiver.
The court further found that Pacay-Pop was competent and that his plea was free, knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The document is a report and recommendation, not the district judge’s final acceptance of the plea or sentencing decision.
- The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- Written objections before sentencing may be necessary to preserve review of factual findings adopted by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation records that the Rule 11 safeguards for a guilty plea were satisfied and places the plea before the district judge for final acceptance and sentencing. It also underscores that plea-agreement waivers and objection deadlines can materially affect later review.