Reported / Citable
Background
Diego Noe Tojin-Marcos was charged with illegal re-entry in violation of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326 under a one-count indictment in the Western District of Texas. The defendant appeared before the magistrate judge on June 22, 2026, and entered into a plea agreement, agreeing to plead guilty to the charge.
The magistrate judge conducted a Rule 11 colloquy to ensure the defendant understood his constitutional rights, the consequences of his plea, and the terms of the plea agreement before accepting the plea.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge recommended that the defendant’s guilty plea be accepted. The court made explicit findings that the defendant fully understood his rights to plead not guilty, be tried by jury, be represented by counsel, and confront witnesses. The defendant also demonstrated understanding of the nature of the charge, the immigration consequences of the plea, mandatory minimum and maximum penalties, applicable sentencing guidelines, and the terms of the plea agreement.
The magistrate judge found that the defendant’s plea was made freely, knowingly, and voluntarily, without threats, force, or inducement beyond those contained in the plea agreement. The court also found a factual basis supporting the guilty plea and that the defendant was competent to enter the plea. The recommendation is subject to approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant pleaded guilty to federal illegal re-entry charge (8 U.S.C. § 1326)
- Magistrate judge documented that defendant understood immigration consequences of the plea, a key legal requirement
- Record shows compliance with Rule 11 requirements for valid guilty pleas
- Case proceeds to district judge for final acceptance of plea and sentencing
Why It Matters
Illegal re-entry prosecutions are common in border district courts, and this proceeding illustrates how federal courts ensure due process in guilty plea acceptances, particularly in immigration cases where consequences extend beyond criminal penalties. The detailed colloquy protects defendants’ rights and creates a record that can withstand appellate scrutiny.
The emphasis on the defendant’s understanding of immigration consequences reflects the evolving requirement in federal practice that defendants in immigration cases be fully advised of those collateral consequences before entering pleas.