Reported / Citable
Background
Ismael Rascon-Castillo appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty to Count One of the indictment under a plea agreement. Count One charged illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1).
Rascon-Castillo consented to entering his plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The magistrate judge advised him under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Rascon-Castillo understood the charge, his trial rights, the possible penalties, the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the terms of his plea agreement, including its appeal and collateral-attack waiver.
The magistrate judge further found that the plea was competent, knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The report therefore recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt; it did not itself finally accept the plea or impose sentence.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling is a recommendation to the district judge, not a final judgment or sentence.
- The defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1).
- Written objections before sentencing may be required to preserve review of the magistrate judge’s factual findings.
Why It Matters
The report documents Rule 11 findings supporting acceptance of the plea while preserving the district judge’s role in final approval and sentencing. It also flags the consequences of failing to object before sentencing.