Opinion
1:21-CR-257-LY
01-04-2022
United States of America v. Rodolfo Longino-Julian
TO: THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SUSAN HIGHTOWER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3). The District Court referred this case to the United States Magistrate Judge for the taking of the defendant's felony guilty plea and for his allocution pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
On January 4, 2022, the defendant and counsel appeared before the Magistrate Judge. Counsel were admonished as required by the Due Process Protection Act. The undersigned addressed the defendant personally in open court, informed him of the admonishments under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and determined that he understood those admonishments. The defendant pled guilty to one count of Illegal Re-entry into the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
The Magistrate Judge finds the following:
1. The defendant, with the advice of his attorney, consented to enter this guilty plea before the Magistrate Judge, subject to final approval and sentencing by the District Judge;
2. The defendant fully understands the nature of the charge against him and possible penalties;
3. The defendant understands his constitutional and statutory rights, understands that his constitutional and statutory rights can be waived, and understands the meaning and effect of the waiver of his constitutional and statutory rights;
4. The defendant's plea was made freely and voluntarily;
5. The defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; and
6. There is a factual basis for this plea.
RECOMMENDATION
The Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court accept the defendant's guilty plea and, after reviewing the presentence investigation report, enter a Final Judgment of guilt against him.
WARNING
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained within this Report within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations and, except on grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court to which no objections were filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53, 106 S.Ct. 466, 472-74 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).