Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_02-cr-01640/USCOURTS-azd-4_02-cr-01640-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Pilar Noriega-Encina
Defendant
Jose Pilar Noriega-Encinas
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CR 02-1640-CKJ-CRP

)

vs. )

) REPORT AND

)

) RECOMMENDATION

JOSE PILAR NORIEGA-ENCINAS, )

)

Defendant. )

__________________________________ )

Plaintiff filed a petition to revoke supervised release. An evidentiary hearing was

conducted on March 25, 2008. This Court recommends that the District Judge find

Defendant to have violated his supervised release conditions.

Consent

Upon referral by a district judge, and the consent of the parties, a magistrate judge

may conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning a petition to revoke supervised release.

United States v. Colacurcio, 84 F.3d 326, 332 (9th Cir.1996), dicta (consent of defendant

required by 18 U.S.C. § 3401(i) when construed in context of the statute as a whole including

18 U.S.C. § 3401(b)). A review of the transcript of the hearing indicates that consent was

Case 4:02-cr-01640-CKJ-CRP Document 101 Filed 04/16/08 Page 1 of 3
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 -

not discussed with Defendant and no written consent appears in the docket in this case.

Regardless, both parties proceeded with the hearing as if consent had been given. Consent

can be inferred by the parties voluntarily proceeding before a magistrate judge. Roell v.

Withrow, 538 U.S. 580, 586-587, 123 S.Ct. 1696, 1701-1702 (2003); Chambless v.

Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, 481 F.3d 1345, 1350-1351 (11th Cir.2007). The Court

determines by the actions of the parties that they consent to jurisdiction of the Magistrate

Judge. 

Statement of Facts

The Petition alleges that Defendant began to serve a two year term of supervised

release when he was released from prison on August 20, 2005. Allegation A alleged a

violation of standard condition number one, that Defendant violated federal law by illegally

reentering the country after deportation. 

United States Probation Officer Bea Castillo testified for the Government. Her

testimony established that Defendant was ordered removed on September 30, 2005, and

pursuant to that order was removed on October 4, 2005 through San Ysidro, California. He

was subsequently found back in Phoenix, Arizona on October 24, 2006, while still on

supervised release, when police responded to a domestic disturbance call.

Petitioner was not advised of his supervised release conditions in writing. Reporter’s

Transcript, 3/25/2008, p. 18. However, Judge Edginton specifically put Defendant on notice

that he was not to reenter the United States without legal authorization. Reporter’s

Transcript, 11/19/2004, p. 7. The requirement that he not violate federal law is imputed to

Defendant. United States v. Ortuno-Higareda, 450 F.3d 406, 411-412 (9th Cir.2006).

Recommendation

Wherefore, the Court finds as follows:

1. By the actions of the parties, the Magistrate Judge infers the parties consented to

jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. 

2. Defendant violated his conditions of supervised release by reentering the United

States after being deported on October 4, 2005, thus violating federal law.

Case 4:02-cr-01640-CKJ-CRP Document 101 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

3. Allegation A is sustained.

The Court recommends that the District Judge adopt the finding that Defendant

violated Standard Condition Number One and enter a disposition as appropriate.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), any party may serve and file written objections within

ten days of being served with a copy of the Report and Recommendation. If objections are

not timely filed, they may be deemed waived. The parties are advised that any objections

filed are to be identified with the following case number: cr-02-1640-CKJ.

The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of the Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff

and counsel for Defendant.

A disposition hearing is set for TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 AT 9:30 A.M. before the

Honorable Cindy K. Jorgenson.

DATED this 16th day of April, 2008.

Case 4:02-cr-01640-CKJ-CRP Document 101 Filed 04/16/08 Page 3 of 3