Reported / Citable
Background
Alma Leticia Ramirez appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to Count Two of the indictment.
Count Two charged Ramirez with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Ramirez consented to enter her plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda found that Ramirez was competent and that her guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The court found that she understood the charge, potential penalties, trial rights, sentencing process, and plea agreement.
The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report did not itself accept the plea or impose sentence.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of Ramirez’s guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance.
- The court found the Rule 11 requirements satisfied, including competence, voluntariness, and a factual basis.
- Written objections filed before sentencing are required to preserve review of findings adopted by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The report preserves the district judge’s final role in accepting the plea and sentencing Ramirez while documenting the magistrate judge’s Rule 11 findings.
It also underscores that a defendant’s plea-agreement appellate and collateral-attack waiver does not change the need to timely object to the magistrate judge’s findings.