Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cr-50002/USCOURTS-azd-4_14-cr-50002-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Douglas Enrique Lopez-Vivas
Defendant
USA
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, )

) CR14-50002-TUC-JGZ (JR)

Plaintiff, )

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

v. )

)

Douglas Enrique Lopez-Vivas, )

)

Defendant. ) )

Pursuant to District Judge Zipp’s Order, the Defendant's Evidentiary Hearing came

on for hearing before Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau on April 7, 2014. Defendant

was present and assisted by counsel. The Government presented one witness. The Defendant

testified in his own defense.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

On January 10, 2014, a Petition to Revoke Supervised Release was filed alleging that

the Defendant violated his conditions of supervised release by committing a federal crime

during the term of his supervision. According to the Petition, on November 8, 2010, the

Defendant was sentenced to serve 37 months in prison followed by 36 months of supervised

release. The Defendant’s term of supervised release began to run on March 15, 2013, when

he was released from prison. His conditions of supervision included the following language,

"[t]he defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local crime.” 

Probation Officer Pauline Ware testified at the evidentiary hearing that the Defendant

was deported on May 8, 2013, through El Paso, Texas, and was again found in the United

States without legal authorization on September 5, 2013, near Kupk in the District of

Case 4:14-cr-50002-JGZ-JR Document 13 Filed 04/16/14 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 -

Arizona. In fact, on April 4, 2014, the Defendant went to trial and was convicted of illegally

entering the United States after deportation. Sentencing is scheduled for June 16, 2014. 

The Defendant also testified at the hearing. He admitted that he committed this new

offense but argued that he should not again be punished for his prior convictions. 

II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A court may revoke a defendant's supervised release if it finds by a preponderance of

the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his supervised release. United States

v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 999, 121 S.C. 498, 148

LED.2d 469 (2000); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3).

Having considered the testimony, the pleadings in the current case and the conviction

entered in CR13-01677-TUC-JGZ(JR), the Magistrate Judge finds by a preponderance of the

evidence that the Defendant violated his conditions of supervised release.

III. RECOMMENDATION FOR DISPOSITION 

BY THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Based on the foregoing and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) and Local Rule 1.7(d)(2),

Rules of Practice of the United States District Court, District of Arizona, the Magistrate

Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court, after an independent review of the record,

find that the Defendant violated his terms of supervised release by committing another

federal crime.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B), the parties have fourteen (14) days from the date

of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections to these findings and

recommendations with the District Court. Any Objections and Responses to objections filed

should be filed as CR13-01677-TUC-JGZ. No Replies shall be filed unless leave is granted

from the District Court. 

DATED this 16th day of April, 2014.

Case 4:14-cr-50002-JGZ-JR Document 13 Filed 04/16/14 Page 2 of 2