Reported / Citable
Background
Luis Panzo-Tzompaxtle appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters for a felony guilty-plea proceeding. The matter had been referred under a general order for the magistrate judge to take the plea.
After being advised that he could have a district judge take his plea, Panzo-Tzompaxtle consented to proceeding before the magistrate judge. He pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment, charging illegal reentry into the United States.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Watters found that Panzo-Tzompaxtle understood the charge, potential penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights; that he knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights; and that he was competent to plead guilty. The magistrate judge also found a sufficient factual basis for the plea.
The magistrate judge found Panzo-Tzompaxtle guilty of the count to which he pleaded and recommended that Chief U.S. District Judge Alia Moses accept the plea and enter a judgment of guilt. Sentencing was referred to the presiding district judge.
Key Takeaways
- The defendant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to illegal reentry.
- The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the plea after completing the Rule 11 colloquy and making competency, voluntariness, and factual-basis findings.
- Parties have 14 days to object; failure to object may forfeit de novo review and limit appellate review to plain error.
Why It Matters
The filing is a findings-and-recommendation order, not a final district-court acceptance of the plea or a sentencing decision. Unless timely objections are filed and sustained, the district judge may accept the recommended guilty plea and later impose sentence.