Reported / Citable
Background
Jorge Enrique Santa Maria-Davadi was charged with illegal re-entry into the United States in violation of federal law. The case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for acceptance of the defendant’s guilty plea pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 11.
On June 11, 2026, the defendant appeared before the magistrate judge with counsel for the plea colloquy. The defendant was advised of his right to have the plea taken by the United States District Judge and was admonished regarding his constitutional rights and the consequences of entering a guilty plea.
The Court’s Holding
The Magistrate Judge found that all procedural requirements for a valid guilty plea under Rule 11 were satisfied. The defendant, with advice of counsel, consented to the plea being taken by the magistrate judge rather than the district judge. Critically, the defendant demonstrated that he understood the nature of the charges, the applicable penalties, and his constitutional and statutory rights, which he freely and voluntarily waived.
The court found that the defendant pled guilty to Count One (illegal re-entry) without any plea agreement, that the plea was entered freely and voluntarily, that the defendant is competent to enter such a plea, and that there is sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea. Accordingly, the magistrate judge found the defendant guilty of the charge and recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- Guilty plea to illegal re-entry accepted by magistrate judge after full Rule 11 compliance
- Defendant pled guilty without a plea agreement, establishing knowing and voluntary waiver of rights
- Sentencing will be conducted separately by the presiding United States District Judge
- Defendant is subject to potential restitution as determined at sentencing
Why It Matters
This matter reflects routine criminal procedure in federal illegal re-entry cases, which constitute a significant enforcement priority. The case demonstrates strict adherence to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 requirements to ensure guilty pleas are constitutionally valid and free from coercion.
For practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of the Rule 11 colloquy in establishing a robust record that can withstand appellate scrutiny. The magistrate judge’s detailed findings provide a foundation for the district judge’s acceptance of the plea and subsequent sentencing determination.