Reported / Citable
Background
Rigoberto Urias-Batres was charged in Count One of an indictment with illegal re-entry in violation of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). On July 15, 2026, the defendant appeared before Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda with counsel. After being advised of his rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charged offense.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that the defendant’s guilty plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and with a factual basis. The court made detailed findings that the defendant understood: his constitutional rights to trial and confrontation; the nature of the charge and immigration consequences; applicable penalties, mandatory minimums, and special assessments; the advisory nature of sentencing guidelines; and that his plea was not induced by promises, threats, or force.
The magistrate judge recommended to the district judge that the guilty plea be accepted and judgment of guilt be entered. The recommendation is subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding United States District Judge.
Key Takeaways
- Defendant knowingly waived trial rights and the right to contest the charge through jury trial.
- Defendant acknowledged understanding the immigration consequences of pleading guilty to illegal re-entry.
- Magistrate found a factual basis for the plea and that all Rule 11 requirements were satisfied.
Why It Matters
This proceeding reflects the standard criminal procedure for accepting guilty pleas in federal court. The detailed findings serve to create a record that protects against collateral challenges to the conviction and ensure the defendant’s rights were preserved throughout the plea process. For practitioners, this document illustrates the magistrate judge’s role in Rule 11 compliance determinations.