Reported / Citable
Background
Zafira Velasco-Jimenez appeared with counsel for a Rule 11 plea hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert F. Castaneda. She pleaded guilty, under a plea agreement, to Count One of the indictment, charging illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
Velasco-Jimenez consented to enter her plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The plea agreement included a waiver of her right to appeal or collaterally attack the sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The magistrate judge found that Velasco-Jimenez was competent and that her guilty plea was free, knowing, and voluntary. The court found that she understood the charge, her trial rights, the possible penalties and immigration consequences, the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the plea agreement’s terms.
The magistrate judge also found a factual basis for the plea and concluded that it had not been induced by promises outside the plea agreement or by threats or force. The report recommended that the district judge accept the guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The ruling is a report and recommendation, not the district judge’s final acceptance of the plea or a sentencing decision.
- The magistrate judge found compliance with Rule 11 and a factual basis for the illegal-reentry plea.
- Written objections before sentencing may be necessary to preserve de novo review and appellate review of factual findings adopted by the district judge.
Why It Matters
The recommendation moves the prosecution toward final adjudication while leaving acceptance of the plea and sentencing to the district judge. It also underscores that plea-stage appeal waivers and Rule 11 advisements are central parts of federal illegal-reentry cases.