Case 7:19-cr-00869 Document 26 Filed on 10/31/19 in TXSD Page 1 of 3
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
October 31, 2019
David J. Bradley, Clerk

 Case Document 26 Filed on 10/31/19 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

United States Sentencing Commission and to consider that range in determining the Defendant?s
sentence. See FED. R. CRJM. P. 

The Court also explained that the Defendant could receive a term of supervised release.

The Court explained the range of punishment with regard to imprisonment, ?nes, restitution,
supervised release, and the statutory fee assessments pursuant to the Victims of Crimes Act. The
Court ?nally informed the Defendant that, if a person who is not a United States citizen is
convicted of a crime, he or she may be removed from the United States, denied citizenship, and
denied admission to the United States in the future. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 

The Magistrate Judge ?nds the following:

1. The Defendant, with the advice of counsel, has consented orally and in writing to enter
this guilty plea before the Magistrate Judge, subject to ?nal approval and sentencing
by the District Judge;

2. The Defendant understands the nature of the charges and penalties;

3. The Defendant understands his/her Constitutional and statutory rights and Wishes to
waive these rights;

4. The Defendant?s plea is made ?'eely and voluntarily;

5. The Defendant is competent to enter this plea of guilty; and

6. There is an adequate factual basis for this plea.

Recommendation
The Magistrate Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court accept the plea of guilty

and enter ?nal judgment of guilt against the Defendant.

Case 7:19-cr-00869 Document 26 Filed on 10/31/19 in TXSD Page 3 of 3

Warnings

The parties may ?le objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party ?ling
objections must speci?cally identify those ?ndings 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 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 ?le written objections to the proposed ?ndings and recommendations
contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after being served with a cow of the Report
shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed ?ndings and
recommendations and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate
review of proposed factual ?ndings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court to
which no objections were ?led. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Am, 474 US. 140, 150?53
(1985); Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
bane).

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to all parties.

SIGNED this 3 day of October, 2019, at McAllen, Texas.

J. sco 
Sta 5 Magistrate Judge