Reported / Citable
Background
Bernabe Romero-Felix appeared with counsel before a U.S. magistrate judge and pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to Count One of the indictment, which charged illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
Romero-Felix consented to entering the plea before a magistrate judge, subject to the presiding district judge’s final approval and sentencing. The magistrate judge conducted the plea proceeding and admonished Romero-Felix as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Romero-Felix was competent and that his plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The judge also found that Romero-Felix understood the charge, possible penalties, immigration consequences, trial rights, advisory Sentencing Guidelines, sentencing factors, and the terms of his plea agreement.
The magistrate judge therefore recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report did not itself finally accept the plea, enter judgment, or impose a sentence.
Key Takeaways
- Romero-Felix pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
- The magistrate judge found that the plea satisfied Rule 11 and was competent, knowing, voluntary, and factually supported.
- The report warned that failure to file written objections before sentencing may bar de novo determination by the district judge and would bar appellate review of factual findings accepted or adopted by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The report documents the procedural safeguards surrounding Romero-Felix’s guilty plea, including his understanding of the rights relinquished, the plea agreement’s appellate and collateral-review waiver, and the possible immigration and sentencing consequences.
The recommendation remains subject to action by the presiding district judge, who retains responsibility for final approval of the plea, entry of judgment, and sentencing.