Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cr-00472/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cr-00472-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Cesar Rivera-Jimenez
Defendant
United States of America
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Jose Cesar Rivera-Jimenez,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 04-0472-PHX-EHC

ORDER

On October 29, 2009, Defendant filed a letter addressed to the Clerk of Court which

was noted as a Motion (Dkt. 22) on the docket. In an Order (Dkt. 24 - Order) filed on

November 6, 2009, the Court directed Defendant to file a certificate showing service of the

Notice/Motion on the United States Attorney. On March 17, 2010, Defendant filed a Notice

of Service (Dkt. 30). On April 14, 2010, the United States filed a Response (Dkt.32)

opposing Defendant’s Notice/Motion.

In the Notice/Motion, Defendant says he is currently incarcerated on a conviction for

illegal re-entry after deportation and that his projected release date is July 31, 2012.

Defendant says that upon his arrival at the Corrections Corporation of America facility

regarding this sentence, he was notified of a detainer imposed on him concerning a

supervised release violation in CR-04-0472-PHX-EHC. Defendant requests to plead no

contest to the violation in CR-04-0472-PHX-EHC. Defendant says that, due to his

incarceration, he is unable to appear in person on the alleged violation and asks that the Court

Case 2:04-cr-00472-DGC Document 33 Filed 05/04/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

enter his plea and impose a sentence that runs concurrently to the sentence he is presently

serving. Defendant says he is enclosing a waiver of counsel so the proceedings can be

“carried through immediately.” 

The United States argues in its opposition that a defendant may not voluntarily absent

himself from sentencing until after he has made at least one court appearance and therefore

Defendant’s waiver of appearance to allow a sentence in absentia is prohibited under the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The United States argues that it is the policy of the

Sentencing Guidelines that a sentence imposed for a violation of supervised release should

run consecutively to any sentence imposed for a crime that is the basis for the revocation,

citing United States v. Contreras, 63 F.3d 852, 855 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The Court will not enter Defendant’s plea. Defendant’s Notice/Motion is not sufficient

to constitute any waiver regarding the violation that is the basis of the detainer or

Defendant’s appearance. Defendant has not demonstrated that he will sustain actionable

prejudice if the proceedings concerning the supervised release violation are completed after

he has served his present sentence. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Notice/Motion (Dkt. 22) is denied.

DATED this 30th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:04-cr-00472-DGC Document 33 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 2