Reported / Citable
Background
Stiven Gerardo Pereira-Alvarez appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge for a felony guilty-plea proceeding referred under a general order. The magistrate judge advised him of his right to have the plea taken by a district judge and conducted the Rule 11 colloquy.
Pereira-Alvarez pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment: illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Sentencing remained assigned to the presiding district judge.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova found that Pereira-Alvarez knowingly and voluntarily consented to the magistrate judge’s taking of his plea; understood the charge, penalties, and rights he was waiving; and was competent to plead guilty.
The magistrate judge further found a sufficient factual basis for the plea and found Pereira-Alvarez guilty of the charge. The report recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt; it did not itself constitute the district judge’s acceptance of the recommendation.
Key Takeaways
- The defendant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- The magistrate judge concluded that the Rule 11 requirements were satisfied and that the plea had a sufficient factual basis.
- The parties had 14 days to object to the recommendation before district-court review.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the magistrate-judge role in felony plea proceedings: after obtaining the defendant’s consent and conducting the Rule 11 colloquy, the magistrate judge may make findings and recommend acceptance, while the district judge retains responsibility for acceptance and sentencing.