legal-news

5:26-mj-00233-1 USA v. Aragon-Soto

26-mj-00233
Active Active litigation Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

This entry appears to be a duplicate of case 16642 — same caption (USA v. Aragon-Soto), same docket number (26-mj-00233), and the same absence of substantive case information. Both entries share the federal magistrate designation and an unidentified court. No additional facts distinguish this record from case 16642. The duplication may reflect a data entry or system indexing issue on the Juryvine platform.

No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.

Key Issues

  • Duplicate docket entry requiring reconciliation
  • Federal magistrate criminal proceeding against Aragon-Soto
  • Absence of charging or factual record
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
Advertisement

Case Timeline

8 events
info
Other April 20, 2026

5:26-mj-00207-1 USA v. Solorio-Lopez

Financial Affidavit (CJA 23) - NFPV ( 6

info
Other April 20, 2026

5:26-mj-00206-1 USA v. Ledezma-Avila

Bond and Conditions (CR-1) ( 15

info
Other April 20, 2026

5:26-mj-00234-1 USA v. Navarro-Bernal

A federal magistrate case was filed in the Western District of Texas against Aragon-Soto (5:26-mj-00233-1), with a companion case against Navarro-Bernal (5:26-mj-00234-1) filed the same day. The parallel docket numbers suggest coordinated arrests or a joint investigation. No charging document description was provided, so the specific offense is unknown.

info
Other April 20, 2026

5:26-mj-00242-1 USA v. Vega-Baez

A magistrate judge docket entry in USA v. Aragon-Soto (5:26-mj-00233-1) cross-references a separate case, USA v. Vega-Baez (5:26-mj-00242-1), suggesting the two matters are linked — likely co-defendants in a related criminal complaint or a consolidated proceeding. The description field is blank, so the nature of the connection is not yet on the record.

info
Other April 20, 2026

8:26-mj-00236-1 USA v. Nieto-Vasquez

A magistrate judge proceeding was docketed in the Western District of Texas under case number 5:26-mj-00233-1, USA v. Aragon-Soto, with a cross-reference to a related matter, 8:26-mj-00236-1, USA v. Nieto-Vasquez. The event type is unspecified and the description is blank, leaving the nature of the proceeding — initial appearance, detention hearing, or otherwise — unknown from the record alone.

info
Other April 20, 2026

2:26-mj-02323-1 USA v. Garfias-Pena

A magistrate proceeding was docketed in Case No. 5:26-mj-00233-1, USA v. Aragon-Soto, but the event title references a different case entirely — 2:26-mj-02323-1, USA v. Garfias-Pena. The mismatch between the case number in the docket and the case name in the event title suggests a clerical error or a related-case transfer notation, and the blank description leaves the actual action taken unknown.

info
Other April 20, 2026

8:26-mj-00235-1 USA v. Argumedo Angeles

A magistrate judge docketed a related matter — USA v. Argumedo Angeles, 8:26-mj-00235-1 — in connection with USA v. Aragon-Soto, 5:26-mj-00233-1. The cross-reference suggests the government is treating these as linked prosecutions, possibly arising from the same investigation or arrest event. No further detail appears in the filing.

info
Other April 20, 2026

5:26-mj-00233-1 USA v. Aragon-Soto

A federal magistrate case was opened in the Western District of Texas under docket 5:26-mj-00233-1, captioning the United States against a defendant named Aragon-Soto. The filing is classified as a magistrate judge matter, which typically signals an initial appearance, complaint, or detention proceeding rather than a full indictment. No further detail appears in the event description.

Advertisement
newspaper

Press Coverage

8 articles
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

1 outlet · 8 articles

Timeline events

8 records on file

Last updated

2 hours, 9 minutes ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.