UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

United States of America

vs.

Eliud Eduardo Garza-Hernandez

§

§

§

§

§

 NO. 1:20-CR-84-RP

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE ROBERT PITMAN

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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 Federal 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.

On July 8, 2020, the defendant and counsel appeared before the Magistrate Judge. In the 

interests of justice, the plea hearing was conducted by video teleconference due to the exigent 

circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic. The defendant, his attorney, and the attorney 

for the Government all consented to proceed by video teleconference, and they were present 

throughout the hearing. The Magistrate Judge finds that the video teleconference was sufficient to 

assess the voluntariness of the plea proceeding, the defendant’s credibility, and his understanding. 

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.

Case 1:20-cr-00084-RP Document 22 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 3
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. 

Case 1:20-cr-00084-RP Document 22 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 3
§ 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).

SIGNED on July 8, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cr-00084-RP Document 22 Filed 07/08/20 Page 3 of 3