Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

USA v. Sebastian-Mateo — Magistrate judge recommended accepting guilty plea to illegal reentry

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Diego Sebastian-Mateo
Court
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division
Judge
Laura Enriquez
Date Decided
July 22, 2026
Docket No.
EP:26-CR-01503(1)-DCG
Topics
Illegal Reentry; Guilty Plea; Rule 11; Immigration

Background

Diego Sebastian-Mateo was charged in Count One of the indictment with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On July 22, 2026, he appeared with counsel before U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez and pleaded guilty.

Sebastian-Mateo consented to entering his plea before a magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The magistrate judge conducted the plea proceeding under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 and advised him of his trial rights, the charge and potential penalties, the immigration consequences of the plea, and the advisory role of the Sentencing Guidelines.

The Court’s Holding

The magistrate judge found Sebastian-Mateo competent to plead and concluded that his plea was free, knowing, and voluntary. The court also found that no promises, threats, force, or threats of force induced the plea and that a factual basis supported it.

Based on those findings, the magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept Sebastian-Mateo’s guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report and recommendation did not itself finally accept the plea, enter judgment, or impose a sentence.

Key Takeaways

  • Sebastian-Mateo pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
  • The magistrate judge found the plea knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis after conducting the Rule 11 colloquy.
  • Acceptance of the plea, entry of judgment, and sentencing remain for the presiding district judge.

Why It Matters

The report documents compliance with Rule 11 and provides the findings needed for the district judge to decide whether to accept the guilty plea. It also confirms that Sebastian-Mateo understood the plea’s immigration consequences and the court’s consideration of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines and the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The notice warns that failure to object before sentencing may bar de novo review by the district judge and appellate review of factual findings later accepted or adopted by that judge.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top