USA v. Rabanales-Perez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:25-cr-20517-PCH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUAN CARLOS RABANALES-PEREZ,
Defendant.
___________________________________ /
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CHANGE OF PLEA
THIS CAUSE is before the Court following an Order of Reference to conduct a
proceeding for acceptance of a guilty plea by Defendant Juan Carlos Rabanales-Perez. Based upon
the change of plea hearing conducted on January 23, 2026, this Court makes the following findings,
and recommends that the guilty plea be accepted.
1. The undersigned advised Defendant of his right to have these proceedings conducted by
the District Judge assigned to the case, and that this Court was conducting the change of plea
hearing pursuant to an Order of Reference from the District Court. (ECF No. 22). I further advised
Defendant that the District Judge assigned to this case would be the sentencing judge and would
make all findings and rulings concerning Defendant’s sentence. I advised Defendant that he did
not have to permit the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to conduct this hearing and
could request that the change of plea hearing be conducted by the District Judge assigned to the
case. Defendant, Defendant’s attorney and the Assistant United States Attorney all consented on
the record to the undersigned conducting the change of plea hearing.
Case 1:25-cr-20517-PCH Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 1 of 3

2. The plea colloquy was conducted in accordance with the outline set forth in the Bench
Book for District Judges, and in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
3. Defendant pled guilty to the sole Count of the Indictment, which charges him with illegal
reentry after removal in violation of Title 8, United States Code, Sections 1326(a) and 1326(b)(1).
I advised Defendant that the maximum penalty the Court could impose is a term of up to 10 years
imprisonment, followed by a term of supervised release of up to 3 years. In addition to any term
of imprisonment, the Court may impose a fine of up to $250,000.00, and the Court will assess a
mandatory special assessment of $100.00, which Defendant has agreed is due to be paid at the
time of sentencing. Defendant was also advised of the possibility of restitution and forfeiture, and
the potential for immigration consequences including deportation. Defendant acknowledged that
he understood the possible maximum penalties that could be imposed in the case.
4. To set forth the factual basis for the entry of the plea, the Government proffered the facts
it would have established at trial. The Government established all the essential elements of the
crime to which Defendant is pleading guilty. Defendant acknowledged that the facts proffered by
the Government were accurate, and defense counsel agreed that the proffer satisfied all elements
of the crime charged.
5. Defendant acknowledged that he is satisfied with his attorney and that he has had a full
opportunity to discuss all facets of his case with his attorney. Defendant indicated that he has
reviewed discovery with counsel.
6. Based upon all of the foregoing and the plea colloquy conducted by this Court, the
undersigned finds that Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that
Defendant is aware of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea, and that the plea
Case 1:25-cr-20517-PCH Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 2 of 3

of guilty is a knowing and voluntary plea supported by an independent basis in fact containing
each of the essential elements of the offense.
7. Therefore, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant be found to have freely and
voluntarily entered his guilty plea to Count One of the Indictment filed in this case, as more
particularly described herein, and that Defendant be adjudicated guilty of the offense as charged.
8. A pre-sentence investigation report is being prepared for the District Court by the United
States Probation Office.
The parties will have THREE (3) CALENDAR DAYS1 within which to file written
objections, if any, for consideration by the United States District Judge. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.
P. 59(b), Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, and accompanying Internal Operating Procedure 3, the parties
are hereby notified that failure to object in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right
to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal
conclusions. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in open court at Miami, Florida, this 23rd day of
January, 2026.
________________________________
LAUREN F. LOUIS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: The Honorable Paul C. Huck
Counsel of record
1 The parties consented to this abbreviated term for objections.
Case 1:25-cr-20517-PCH Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/23/2026 Page 3 of 3