REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ERIC J. MARKOVICH, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. [Doc. 20.] The government does not oppose the motion. For that reason, and the reasons discussed below, the undersigned recommends that the District Court grant the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.

The defendant was charged with illegally re-entering the United States after being deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(1). On May 23, 2018, the defendant pled guilty to that offense without a plea agreement. The Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation dated May 23, 2018, which recommended that the District Court accept the guilty plea. [Doc. 16.] The District Court entered an Order dated June 12, 2018, accepting the guilty plea. [Doc. 17.]

The defense filed the instant motion to withdraw the guilty plea on August 15, 2018. The basis for the motion is the Supreme Court's June 21, 2018 decision in Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S.Ct. 2105 (2018). In that case, the Supreme Court held that "[a] putative notice to appear that fails to designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen's removal proceedings is not a `notice to appear under section 1229(a).'" Pereira, 138 S. Ct. at 2114-2115. The defense argues that because the defendant's notice to appear "lacked the `time and place' information required, it did not meet the definition of a `notice to appear' under section 1229(a)(1)(G)." [Doc. 20 at 5.]

A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty after the court accepts the plea but before the court imposes sentence if the defendant provides "a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal." Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 11(d)(2). "The `fair and just' standard is generous and must be applied liberally." United States v. McTiernan, 546 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008). A "fair and just" reason for withdrawal includes any reason that did not exist when the defendant entered his plea. United States v. Davis, 428 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir. 2005).

Here, the Supreme Court's decision in Pereira was issued after the defendant pled guilty. That decision may provide a basis for the defendant to attack his removal from the United States. As such, the Court concludes that a fair and just reason exists to permit the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. Accordingly, it is recommended that the District Court GRANT the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 59(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. No reply shall be filed unless leave is granted from the District Court. If objections are filed, the parties should use the following case number: CR 18-00201-TUC-JGZ.

Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 59 may result in waiver of the right of review.