Reported / Citable
Background
Antonio Perez-Hernandez appeared with counsel and pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment, charging illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He entered the plea pursuant to a plea agreement and consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the district judge.
At the plea hearing, the magistrate judge gave the Rule 11 advisements. Perez-Hernandez acknowledged the rights he was waiving, the nature of the charge, potential penalties, immigration consequences, the advisory role of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the appeal and collateral-attack waiver in his plea agreement.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez found that Perez-Hernandez was competent and that his guilty plea was free, knowing, and voluntary. The court also found a factual basis supporting the plea and determined that it was not induced by promises beyond the plea agreement or by threats or force.
The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept Perez-Hernandez’s guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The recommendation left final acceptance of the plea and sentencing to the presiding district judge.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of Perez-Hernandez’s guilty plea to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- The court found the Rule 11 requirements satisfied, including a knowing and voluntary waiver of trial rights.
- Final approval of the plea and sentencing remain with the district judge.
Why It Matters
The report preserves the distinction between a magistrate judge’s plea colloquy and recommendation and the district judge’s ultimate authority to accept the plea and impose sentence. It also cautions that written objections to the findings and recommendation must be filed before sentencing to preserve review of factual findings adopted by the district judge.