Reported / Citable
Background
Daimarelis De La Caridad Perez-De La Cruz appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters on June 11, 2026, pursuant to a referral for taking a felony guilty plea under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). The defendant was represented by counsel and personally addressed in open court. She was advised of her right to have the plea taken by a district judge and was admonished according to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The defendant faced Count One of an indictment charging illegal re-entry into the United States. No plea agreement was entered into by the parties.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that the defendant, with counsel’s advice, voluntarily consented to the plea proceeding before the magistrate. The court found that she understood the nature of the charges and penalties, understood her constitutional and statutory rights, and freely and voluntarily waived those rights. The defendant pled guilty to the charge of illegal re-entry without a plea agreement.
The magistrate found the defendant competent to enter the guilty plea, found a sufficient factual basis for the plea, and determined the plea was made freely and voluntarily. Based on these findings, the magistrate entered a judgment of guilty. The magistrate recommended that the guilty plea be accepted and the judgment of guilt be entered. Sentencing authority was reserved for the presiding United States District Judge.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pled guilty to illegal re-entry without negotiating a plea agreement
- Magistrate found defendant competent and that her plea was voluntary and knowing
- Judgment of guilt was entered with sentencing deferred to the district judge
- Defendant may be subject to restitution
Why It Matters
This case establishes a record of guilty plea compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 requirements in an illegal re-entry prosecution. The magistrate’s certification that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived her rights and entered an uncoerced guilty plea creates a foundation for district court sentencing and limits appellate challenges to the conviction itself.