Criminal No. H-16-490-1.


United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Luis Antonio Jimenez-Alberto, Defendant, represented by Charlotte Anne Herring , Federal Public Defender & Natalia Marissa Cornelio , Federal Public Defender.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Michael Lear , US Attorney's Office.


MARY MILLOY, Magistrate Judge.

This case was referred by Judge Lee H. Rosenthal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3), for proceedings under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. All parties executed a waiver of the right to plead guilty before a United States district judge, as well as a consent to proceed before a magistrate judge. On March 24, 2017, the defendant and his counsel appeared before this court, and he was informed of the admonishments under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court determined that the defendant was competent to plead guilty and fully understood those admonishments. The defendant agreed to plead guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment (violation of Title 8, United States Code, Sections 1326(a) & (b)(1)). Any other counts are to be dismissed at sentencing. The court explained that the district court will consult the Sentencing Guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission in determining the defendant's sentence. The court also explained the range of punishment with regard to imprisonment, fines, restitution, supervised release, and the statutory fee assessment pursuant to the Victims of Crimes Act. The magistrate judge finds the following:

1. The defendant, with the advice of his attorney, has consented orally and in writing to enter his 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 charges and penalties; 3. The defendant understands his constitutional and statutory rights and wishes to waive these rights; 4. The defendant's plea is made freely and voluntarily; 5. The defendant is competent to enter his plea of guilty; and 6. There is an adequate factual basis for his plea.


It is RECOMMENDED that the district court accept the plea of guilty and enter final judgment of guilt against the defendant.


The parties may file objections to the 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. Battle v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n. 8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc)). A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in 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 upon 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 (1985); Douglass v. United Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this report and recommendation to all parties.


1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases