USA v. Garcia-Salas

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 1:25-cr-20479-PCH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
RUBEN GARCIA-SALAS,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CHANGE OF PLEA
THIS CAUSE is before the Court following an Order of Referral to conduct a proceeding
for acceptance of a guilty plea by Defendant Ruben Garcia-Salas in this case. (ECF No. 13). Based
upon the change of plea hearing conducted on January 13, 2026, the undersigned makes the
following findings and recommends that the guilty plea be accepted.
1. 	The hearing began with the assistance of a Court-certified Spanish interpreter. It became
clear that, despite his insistence that he prefers Spanish, his Spanish comprehension was
insufficient to conduct the hearing. An interpreter of Mam was utilized. The Spanish interpreter
interpreted the Court’s questions from English to Spanish for the Mam interpreter, who addressed
Defendant through the Court’s remote video capacity; the Mam interpreter interpreted the
Defendant’s responses into Spanish and the Spanish interpreter to English for the record.
2. 	This Court 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 Referral from the District Court. This Court 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. This Court advised Defendant that he did
Case 1:25-cr-20479-PCH Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2026 Page 1 of 3

2
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 this Court conducting the change of plea hearing.
3. 	This Court conducted a plea colloquy in accordance with the outline set forth in the Bench
Book for District Judges, and in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
4. 	Defendant pled guilty to the Indictment, which charges him with illegal reentry after
removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). The Court advised Defendant that the maximum penalty
the Court could impose is a term of two years imprisonment, followed by a maximum term of
supervised release of up to one year. In addition to any term of imprisonment, the Court may also
impose a fine of up to $250,000.00. Defendant was further advised that the Court will impose a
mandatory special assessment of $100.00, which is due to be paid at the time of sentencing.
Defendant was also advised of the possibility of restitution and forfeiture, as well as the potential
for immigration consequences including forfeiture. Defendant acknowledged that he understood
the possible maximum penalties that could be imposed in the case.
5. 	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
crimes 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.
6. 	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.
7. 	Based upon all of the foregoing and the plea colloquy conducted by this Court, the
Case 1:25-cr-20479-PCH Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2026 Page 2 of 3

3
undersigned finds that Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea,
that Defendant is aware of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea, and that the
plea of guilty is a knowing and voluntary plea supported by an independent basis in fact
containing each of the essential elements of the offense.
8. 	Therefore, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendant be found to have freely and
voluntarily entered his guilty plea to the Indictment filed in this case, as more particularly
described herein, and that Defendant be adjudicated guilty of the offense as charged.
9. 	Counsel for both Parties indicated a preference to waive the preparation investigation
report and the Government confirmed it will not oppose entry of a sentence to time-served.
Accordingly, a pre-sentence investigation report is not recommended at this time. The sentencing
will be set by separate order.
The Parties will have THREE (3) DAYS1 within which to file written objections, if any, for
consideration by the United States District Judge. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
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 13th day of January, 2026.
LAUREN F. LOUIS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 The Parties agreed to this abbreviated period within which to file objections.
Case 1:25-cr-20479-PCH Document 22 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/14/2026 Page 3 of 3