Reported / Citable
Background
On June 23, 2026, defendant Noe Fernando Regalado-Quiteno appeared before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda in the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division, with counsel present. The defendant was charged in an indictment with illegal re-entry into the United States, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Before proceeding, the defendant waived his right to appear before a district judge and consented to enter his guilty plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding District Judge.
The Court’s Holding
Following the Rule 11 colloquy required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the magistrate judge found that the defendant fully understood his constitutional rights, including the right to trial, the right to confront witnesses, protection against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. The defendant was fully advised of the nature of the charge and the applicable penalties, including mandatory minimum sentences, fines, supervised release, and critically, the immigration consequences of the guilty plea.
The magistrate judge found that the defendant’s plea was entered freely, knowingly, and voluntarily—without any promises, threats, or coercion. The court found the defendant competent to enter a guilty plea and that a sufficient factual basis existed to support it. Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that the District Judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The guilty plea was entered with full understanding of constitutional rights and the direct consequences of the plea
- The defendant was specifically advised of immigration consequences, a critical collateral consequence in re-entry cases
- The plea was found to be entirely voluntary, uncoerced, and supported by factual basis
- The matter now proceeds to the District Judge for final approval and sentencing
Why It Matters
This case demonstrates the strict procedural safeguards federal courts apply to guilty pleas, especially in immigration offenses. Magistrate judges must ensure defendants understand not only direct criminal penalties but also inevitable collateral consequences like deportation. In the Western District of Texas, where immigration cases comprise a substantial portion of the federal criminal docket, proper Rule 11 procedures are essential to ensuring informed pleas and protecting appellate interests.
The detailed magistrate’s findings create a comprehensive record of the defendant’s voluntary acceptance of the plea and its consequences, which protects both the conviction’s finality and the defendant’s due-process rights throughout the sentencing and appellate stages.