Reported / Citable
Background
Victor Humberto Ybarra appeared with counsel before a magistrate judge and pleaded guilty to Count Two of the indictment under a plea agreement. Count Two charged possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B)(ii).
Ybarra consented to enter his plea before the magistrate judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the presiding district judge. The magistrate judge conducted the plea colloquy required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Miguel A. Torres found that Ybarra was competent and that his guilty plea was free, knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis. The judge also found that Ybarra understood the charge, the potential penalties, his trial rights, the advisory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines, and the plea agreement’s appeal and collateral-attack waiver.
The magistrate judge recommended that the district judge accept Ybarra’s guilty plea and enter a judgment of guilt. The report did not itself accept the plea or impose sentence; final approval and sentencing remained with the district judge.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of Ybarra’s guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance.
- The recommendation followed Rule 11 findings that the plea was competent, knowing, voluntary, and factually supported.
- Written objections filed before sentencing may preserve de novo review by the district judge and appellate review of factual findings.
Why It Matters
The report preserves the district judge’s role in final plea acceptance and sentencing while documenting that the Rule 11 prerequisites were met. It also underscores that objections to the recommendation must be filed before sentencing to avoid potential limits on further review.