Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cr-01508/USCOURTS-azd-4_04-cr-01508-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reynaldo Oros-Oros
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, 

vs.

Reynaldo Oros-Oros, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 04–01508-TUC-CKJ(HCE)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion For Resolution Of Outstanding

Release Revocation Proceedings (Doc. 27). For the reasons stated herein, the Magistrate

Judge recommends that the District Court deny Defendant’s Motion as premature and

improvidently filed.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was originally indicted in CR 04-01508-TUC-CKJ for Illegal Re-entry

After Deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1326(a), with enhanced punishment under 8

U.S.C. §1326(b)(2). (Doc. 6). Defendant pleaded guilty to the offense on October 15, 2004.

(Doc. 12). On February 16, 2005, the Court sentenced and ordered Defendant committed to

the Bureau of Prisons for 41 months of incarceration, followed by 24 months of supervised

release, which commenced on June 12, 2007. (Doc. 18). The Court was required to order “as

an explicit condition of supervised release, that [he] not commit another Federal, State, or

Case 4:04-cr-01508-CKJ-JR Document 28 Filed 11/17/10 Page 1 of 5
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

1

Petition to Revoke Supervised Release, Allegation A: Violation of Standard

Condition 1: You shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime during the term of

supervision. (Doc. 23). 

2

It is anticipated that the arrest warrant will be served on Defendant upon discharge

from imprisonment in CR 09-05073-001-RBL. 

- 2 -

local crime during the term of supervision ....” See 18 U.S.C. §3583(d).1 Defendant was

deported on August 18, 2007 through Hidalgo, Texas. (Doc. 23). Defendant was found in the

United States without authorization on October 21, 2008 when he was arrested by

immigration officials in the city of Kelso in the Western District of Washington. (Id.).

As a consequence of Defendant’s arrest in the Western District of Washington, a

Petition to Revoke Supervised Release from the District of Arizona-Tucson Division issued

on May 1, 2009. (Doc. 23). An attendant warrant for Defendant’s arrest also issued on May

4, 2009. (Doc. 24). As part of the Court’s order for Defendant’s arrest for violation of his

supervised release, the Court ordered that “Defendant [is] to be held without bond pending

an appearance before this court by CINDY K. JORGENSON, United States District Judge.”

(Id.). As of the date of this Report and Recommendation, the warrant for Defendant’s arrest

has not been executed, served and returned.2

The Defendant was indicted for Illegal Re-entry After Deportation, in violation of 8

U.S.C. §1326(a), with enhanced punishment under 8 U.S.C. §1326(b)(2), in the Western

District of Washington in CR 09-05073-001-RBL. On June 19, 2009, the Honorable Ronald

B. Leighton sentenced and ordered Defendant committed to the Bureau of Prisons for 42

months of incarceration. 

II. ANALYSIS

Defendant seeks to expedite and resolve the pending Petition to Revoke Supervised

Release filed in the instant case, urging the Court to consider sentencing factors pursuant to

18 U.S.C. §3553(a), to modify or reduce any disposition, or alternatively order that such

disposition be imposed concurrent to the sentence being served in CR 09-05073-001-RBL

Case 4:04-cr-01508-CKJ-JR Document 28 Filed 11/17/10 Page 2 of 5
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

Defendant is currently incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in

Edgefield, South Carolina.

- 3 -

out of the Western District of Washington.3 Defendant’s Motion For Resolution Of

Outstanding Supervised Release Revocation Proceedings (Doc. 23) is prematurely and

improvidently filed: 

A person held in custody for violating ... supervised release must

be taken without unnecessary delay before a magistrate....(B) If

the person is held in custody in a district other than where an

alleged violation occurred, the initial appearance must be in that

district, or in an adjacent district if the appearance can occur

more promptly there.

Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Defendant herein is not being held for having

violated supervised release, but rather, is serving a sentence in a case unrelated to the instant

case. 

Once the District of Arizona warrant issued by this Court for Defendant’s arrest is

executed and served upon Defendant, wherever he may be incarcerated pursuant to Rule

4(c)(1) and (2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, he will then have an initial

appearance. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(a)(1)(B). At the initial appearance Defendant will then be

informed of the alleged violation of supervised release; the right to retained counsel or to

request that counsel be appointed if Defendant cannot obtain counsel; and his right to a

preliminary hearing. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(a)(3) and (b)(1). 

If the court conducting the preliminary hearing finds that there is probable cause to

believe that a violation of supervised release occurred, Defendant will be ordered transferred

to the district that has jurisdiction, i.e., the District of Arizona-Tucson Division.

Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(a)(5)(B) and 32.1(b)(1)(C). Defendant may waive the preliminary

hearing. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(b)(1)(A). In either event, the court before whom Defendant

appears will transfer Defendant to the District of Arizona-Tucson Division once the

Government produces certified copies of the judgment, warrant and warrant application and

the court finds that Defendant is the same individual named in the warrant. Fed.R.Crim.P.

32.1(a)(5)(B)(i) and (ii). 

Case 4:04-cr-01508-CKJ-JR Document 28 Filed 11/17/10 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

Once Defendant is transferred to the District of Arizona, he will have an initial

appearance at which time a revocation hearing will be set within a reasonable time.

Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(b)(2). At the revocation hearing the Court, or Magistrate Judge if

consented to by Defendant, must make a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that

Defendant violated his conditions of supervised release. 18 U.S.C. §3583(e)(3); see 18

U.S.C. §3401(i).

If Defendant is found to have violated the conditions of supervised release by

committing a Federal crime, i.e. Illegal Re-entry After Deportation in CR 09-0573-001-RBL

in the Western District of Washington, he may then invoke the various factors outlined in 18

U.S.C. §3553(a) for purposes of his disposition in the instant case. Title 18 U.S.C. §3584(a)

and (b) are inapplicable for they pertain to the imposition of concurrent or consecutive

sentences, not revocation of supervised release dispositions. Furthermore, the United States

Sentencing Commission has promulgated the guidelines or general policy statements

regarding the appropriate use of the provisions for modification of supervised release under

18 U.S.C. §3583(e). See 28 U.S.C. §994(a)(3). Consequently, the Introductory Commentary

to Part B of Chapter 7 states that “[i]t is the policy of the Commission that the sanction

imposed upon revocation is to be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment

imposed for any criminal conduct that is the basis of the revocation.” U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines Manual, ch. 7, pt. B, introductory cmt. (2004-2010) (emphasis added); see also

U.S.S.G. §7B1.3(f)(term of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of supervised release

“shall be ordered to be served consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the

defendant is serving ....”) (emphasis added); United States v. Kikuyama, 150 F.3d 1210 (9th

Cir. 1998). 

III. CONCLUSION

As outlined above, Defendant moves for relief in the instant case before he has gone

through the procedural channels he must necessarily take in order to petition the Court for

the relief he seeks. Defendant’s Motion For Resolution Of Outstanding Supervised Release

Revocation Proceedings (Doc. 27) is premature and improvidently filed.

Case 4:04-cr-01508-CKJ-JR Document 28 Filed 11/17/10 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IV. RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), the Magistrate Judge

recommends that the District Court deny Defendant’s Motion For Resolution Of Outstanding

Supervised Release Revocation Proceedings (Doc. 27). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(C) 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 a copy of this Report and Recommendation. If objections are filed, parties

should use the following case number: CR 04-01508-TUC-CKJ. 

Failure to file objections in accordance with Fed.R.Crim.P. 59 will result in waiver

of the right to review.

DATED this 17th day of November, 2010.

 

 

Case 4:04-cr-01508-CKJ-JR Document 28 Filed 11/17/10 Page 5 of 5