USA v. Saenz et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §
§
v. § MO:25-CR-101(3)
§
FERNANDO ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ §
MARQUEZ (3) §
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION ON
FELONY GUILTY PLEA BEFORE THE U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this matter has been referred by the District Judge for
administration of guilty plea and allocution under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
On October 29, 2025, this cause came before the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge for
Guilty Plea and Allocution of the Defendant FERNANDO ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ
MARQUEZ1 on COUNT ONE of the SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT filed herein charging
her with a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The Defendant2 signed a
written consent to plea before the Magistrate Judge. After conducting said proceeding in the
form and manner prescribed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the Court finds:
a) that the Defendant, after consultation with counsel of record, has knowingly and
voluntarily consented to the administration of the Guilty Plea and Allocution in this cause by a
U.S. Magistrate Judge subject to final approval and imposition of sentence by the District Judge3;
b) that the Defendant and the Government have entered into a written plea agreement4
which has been filed and disclosed in open court pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(c)(2); and,
c) that the Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea5, that
the Defendant is aware of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea,6 and that
1. The Defendant acknowledged that he has been charged under the true and correct name.
2. An interpreter was present and interpreted the proceedings for Defendant.
3. The Court extended the Defendant’s plea deadline to November 14, 2025. The Defendant’s plea is viewed as
timely as it relates to the plea bargain deadline established by the undersigned. This is not a guarantee that the
District Judge will grant acceptance of responsibility credit, but simply a finding that the Defendant’s plea was
timely for the purposes of the plea bargain deadline.
4. The Defendant is aware of the “Notice of Government’s Demand for Forfeiture” that is contained in the
Superseding Indictment and agreed to forfeit the named property.
5. The Defendant testified that he has discussed with his attorney the adverse immigration consequences of pleading
guilty to a felony offense and that he wished to continue with his plea.
6. The Defendant was admonished as to the statutory penalty range for COUNT ONE of the SUPERSEDING
INDICTMENT of a mandatory minimum ten (10) years imprisonment up to life imprisonment, a mandatory
Case 7:25-cr-00101-DAE Document 147 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 2

2
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.
IT IS THEREFORE the recommendation of the undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge that
the District Judge accept the guilty plea of the Defendant FERNANDO ANTONIO
RODRIGUEZ MARQUEZ and that FERNANDO ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ MARQUEZ be
finally adjudged guilty of that offense.
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of this Proposed Findings of Fact and
Recommendation on all parties electronically. In the event that a party has not been served by the
Clerk with this Report and Recommendation electronically, pursuant to the CM/ECF procedures
of this District, the Clerk is ORDERED to mail such party a copy of this Report and
Recommendation by certified mail, return receipt requested. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
any party who desires to object to this report must serve and file written objections within
fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy unless the time period is modified by the
District Judge. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or
recommendation to which objections are being made; the District Judge need not consider
frivolous, conclusive or general objections. Such party shall file the objections with the Clerk of
the Court and serve the objections on the Magistrate Judge and on all other parties. A party’s
failure to file such objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation
contained in this report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge.
Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and
recommendation contained in this report within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge that are
accepted or adopted by the District Judge, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest
injustice.
It is so ORDERED.
SIGNED this 29th day of October, 2025.
RONALD C. GRIFFIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
minimum term of five (5) years supervised release, a fine not to exceed ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00), and a
one hundred dollar ($100.00) mandatory special assessment.
Case 7:25-cr-00101-DAE Document 147 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 2