United States v. Ortiz-Rodriguez
2:20-cr-00032
S.D. OhioMar 4, 2020Background
- Defendant Jesus Ortiz Rodriguez was charged by Information with illegal re-entry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and entered a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) "Fast Track" plea agreement (U.S.S.G. §5K3.1) that includes an appellate-waiver and acknowledgement of immigration consequences.
- On March 4, 2020, with counsel and a Spanish interpreter, Rodriguez consented under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) to plead guilty before a Magistrate Judge and waived indictment under Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b).
- The Magistrate observed Rodriguez’s demeanor, found him competent and not impaired, and conducted the Rule 11 colloquy advising him of rights and consequences.
- Rodriguez confirmed the written statement of facts attached to the plea agreement and admitted guilt; the Magistrate concluded a factual basis existed for Count 1.
- The Magistrate recommended accepting the guilty plea but deferred decision on acceptance/rejection of the plea agreement to the District Judge pending preparation of a presentence investigation report (PSR).
- The report notifies the parties of PSR procedure, the 14‑day objection period for reviewing the R&R, and warns that failure to timely object waives de novo review and certain appeal rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competence and voluntariness of plea | United States: Plea was knowing, voluntary, defendant competent after colloquy and observation | Rodriguez: Consented and affirmed understanding; no contest to voluntariness | Magistrate found defendant competent and plea voluntary; recommended acceptance |
| Consent to magistrate and waiver of indictment | United States: Defendant validly consented to magistrate jurisdiction and waived indictment under Rule 7(b) | Rodriguez: Consented in open court with counsel and interpreter | Magistrate accepted consent as valid per binding precedent and Rule 7(b) procedures |
| Factual basis for the plea | United States: Written statement of facts and defendant’s admissions establish factual basis | Rodriguez: Confirmed accuracy of the facts and admitted guilt | Court concluded a factual basis exists for Count 1 |
| Procedure after plea (PSR, objections, appellate consequences) | United States: PSR will be prepared; parties must file objections within 14 days; failure to object waives de novo review and appeal | Rodriguez: Agreed to PSR process and acknowledged appellate-waiver in plea | Magistrate deferred acceptance of plea agreement to District Judge, ordered PSR, and advised parties of objection timelines and waiver consequences |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cukaj, [citation="25 Fed. App'x 290"] (6th Cir. 2001) (Magistrate judge may accept a guilty plea with the defendant's express consent)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985) (failure to timely object to a magistrate's report waives de novo review)
- Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987) (failure to object to a report and recommendation results in waiver of appellate review)
- United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (same—silence or failure to object to R&R forfeits de novo consideration)