Reported / Citable
Background
Dany Adalberto Rodriguez-Diaz was charged with illegal re-entry into the United States under Count One of an indictment in the Western District of Texas. On June 11, 2026, the defendant appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Matthew H. Watters with counsel present. The magistrate judge conducted a hearing to take the defendant’s guilty plea and determine whether it satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The defendant did not enter into a plea agreement with the government. He chose to proceed with his plea before the magistrate judge rather than the district judge, having been advised of his right to have the plea taken by the district judge.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge made nine key findings: (1) the defendant consented to the plea being taken by the magistrate, with sentencing to follow before the district judge; (2) the defendant understood the nature of the charges and penalties; (3) the defendant understood his constitutional and statutory rights and voluntarily waived them; (4) the defendant pled guilty to illegal re-entry without a plea agreement; (5) the plea was freely and voluntarily given; (6) the defendant was competent to enter the plea; (7) there was a sufficient factual basis for the plea; (8) the defendant is guilty of the charged offense; and (9) the defendant may be subject to restitution.
Based on these findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The case was referred to Chief United States District Judge Alia Moses for sentencing. Parties have 14 days to file objections; failure to do so bars de novo review and limits appellate challenges to plain error.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pled guilty to illegal re-entry into the United States without a negotiated plea agreement
- Magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, and supported by sufficient facts
- Sentencing will be conducted by the district judge, not the magistrate
- Defendant may face restitution obligations
Why It Matters
This recommendation reflects the procedural safeguards in federal criminal practice for guilty pleas. Rule 11 requires courts to ensure defendants understand the consequences of their plea and waive their rights voluntarily—protections that limit post-conviction claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or involuntary guilty pleas.
For immigration practitioners, the case illustrates how illegal re-entry charges proceed through federal court. The magistrate’s role as a gatekeeper—verifying the plea’s validity before the district judge’s sentencing—is standard in federal felony practice and designed to protect defendants’ due process rights.