Reported / Citable
Background
Isaias Remigio-Ugarte was charged with illegal reentry into the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. On May 21, 2026, the defendant appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Cordova with counsel present. The magistrate informed the defendant of his right to have his guilty plea taken by the district judge and provided Rule 11 admonitions regarding the consequences of entering a guilty plea.
The defendant, with advice of counsel, consented to having his plea taken by the magistrate judge rather than the district judge. He entered a guilty plea to Count One of the indictment without a plea agreement.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found as fact that the defendant understood the nature of the charges and penalties, understood his constitutional and statutory rights, and freely and voluntarily waived those rights. The defendant’s guilty plea was made voluntarily and the defendant was found competent to enter the plea.
The magistrate determined there was a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea and recommended that the guilty plea be accepted and a judgment of guilt be entered against the defendant. The defendant was advised that he may be subject to restitution. Sentencing will be conducted by the presiding district judge, Ernest Gonzalez, who will review this magistrate’s report and recommendation.
Key Takeaways
- Defendants may consent to having felony guilty pleas taken before a magistrate judge rather than the district judge, though sentencing remains with the district judge.
- Rule 11 compliance requirements—ensuring knowing and voluntary pleas with adequate factual basis—apply regardless of whether the magistrate or district judge takes the plea.
- A plea without a plea agreement constitutes a valid guilty plea if the other Rule 11 requirements are satisfied.
- The defendant’s acknowledgment that restitution may apply preserves that issue for the sentencing phase.
Why It Matters
This decision reaffirms the procedural framework for accepting guilty pleas in the Fifth Circuit, particularly the ability to bifurcate plea-taking (magistrate) from sentencing (district judge). Attorneys handling federal criminal cases should note that magistrate judges conducting guilty pleas must still comply with all Rule 11 requirements and must place defendants on notice of potential consequences.
For immigration practitioners, this case exemplifies the continuing enforcement of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (illegal reentry), a common felony charge for individuals with prior deportations who return to the United States. The straightforward guilty plea here suggests limited defense options once prior deportation and re-entry are established.