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

GLENN B. McCORMICK

Acting United States Attorney District of Arizona

RAQUEL ARELLANO

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Arizona State Bar No. 011796

United States Courthouse

405 W. Congress Street, Suite 4800

Tucson, Arizona 85701

Telephone: 520-620-7300

Email: raquel.arellano@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Robert Francis Krebs, 

 Defendant.

CR 18-00263-TUC-JGZ (JR)

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Now comes the United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, 

and hereby submits this Sentencing Memorandum for the Court’s consideration. 

The United States concurs with the U.S. Probation Department’s calculations in the 

Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) filed on August 10, 2021 (Doc 206) regarding a 

Total Offense Level of 34, Criminal History Category VI, and Guideline Provisions of 262 

to 300 months incarceration. The United States concurs with the U.S. Probation 

Department’s recommendation of 262 months’ incarceration to be followed by a term of 

supervised release of five years. The applicable guideline range accounts for the 

defendant’s conduct, prior criminal history including violent felony convictions, his 

acceptance of responsibility, and his placement in Criminal History Category VI. 

Defendant has been in federal custody since January 23, 2018. Defendant filed objections 

to the PSR and those have been addressed in separate pleadings. The most significant 
- 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

objection pertains to whether the defendant qualifies as a career offender for an 

enhancement and placement in base offense level 34 and Criminal History Category VI. 

Should the Court sustain this objection, then the total offense level would be 23 or 25 and 

the Criminal History Category would be IV. The total offense level would be 25 if the 

Court denies the defendant’s objection regarding acceptance of responsibility levels not 

being granted. The total offense level would be 23 if the Court sustains the defendant’s 

objection and deducts two levels for acceptance of responsibility. The resulting ranges 

would be: 84 to 105 or 70 to 87 months, respectively.

Defendant is now before the Court for his sixth felony conviction. Defendant’s 

criminal history extends over 50 years beginning with serving a prison term of three (3) 

years for committing bank embezzlement in 1966 in Chicago, Illinois. His prior serious 

offenses include threatened use of violence and use of weapons to intimidate victims. 

Defendant committed the instant offense while on absconder status from probation in 

Florida after having served a term of imprisonment for violent offenses including 

kidnapping (later changed to false imprisonment) and armed robbery in connection with 

an armed bank robbery. A petition to revoke probation has been filed in Florida. (PSR

¶ 36.) Florida seeks to pursue violation proceedings against the defendant following 

sentencing in the instant offense. Defendant has egregious prior violent criminal 

convictions involving victims as depicted in Paragraphs 35 and 36 of the PSR. In the 1988-

Armed Robbery conviction reflected in Paragraph 35 of the PSR, the defendant used a 

handgun to successfully escape from the custody of sheriff’s deputies with the help of an 

accomplice. Pima County Sheriff deputies were disarmed of their weapons while at a 

polygraph examination office. The deputies and two office employees were ordered from 

the reception area to a back office where their hands and feet were bound, and their mouths 

taped shut. Defendant, with the aid of his accomplice, then escaped from custody.

Defendant was sentenced to 28 years’ prison for that conviction. 

Paragraph 36 notes a prior violent bank robbery committed in Sanford, Florida. 

Defendant handcuffed and tied two bank employees and placed them in the vault. The 
- 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

Florida PSR for that offense notes that the defendant stated if he were released, he would 

do the same thing again within 15 minutes. Psychiatrists also previously called his 

behavior sociopathic.

Defendant’s previous lengthy terms of incarceration did not rehabilitate him. 

Instead, within six months of being released from prison in 2017, and even at his advanced 

age, the defendant committed the instant offense with the use of a simulated weapon and 

threatened use of violence to intimidate the bank teller victims. 

In the defendant’s lengthy post-Miranda statement to law enforcement (which was 

admitted as evidence at trial) the defendant did not appear remorseful for his criminal 

conduct and admitted he wanted to get caught and go back to the prison system. In his 

statement, he laid out his meticulous plan of surveying various banks to determine which 

one would be the easiest one to rob. He observed which banks had female versus male 

tellers. He mentioned that he had gone to the Wal-Mart at El Con Mall days before the 

robbery to purchase a BB gun. He mentioned his pre-set getaway plan of going to the 

Tucson Mall shopping center across from the bank following the robbery wherein he would 

retrieve his wheelchair that he had stashed at the Sears store. He mentioned he would 

remove his outer clothing to avoid getting caught. Videotapes introduced at trial taken 

from the Sears store and the Tucson Mall, depict the defendant stashing a wheelchair before 

the bank robbery and then retrieving it after the robbery. Videos depict him pushing a 

wheelchair, wearing different clothing after emerging from a Sears bathroom, and roaming 

the mall for hours while seated in the wheelchair. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the PSR 

summarize portions of the defendant’s post-arrest statements. Paragraphs 1 through 12 

outline the Offense Conduct of the offense. The total amount stolen from the bank was 

$8,384.84. (PSR ¶ 6.)

Defendant is a career offender and a menace to society. Defendant’s advanced 82 

years of age and limited physical condition did not deter him from committing a bank 

robbery with the use of a simulated weapon. Videotape from the bank show him walking 

in and out of the bank. His physical condition did not hinder him from crossing a major 
- 4 -

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

street (Oracle Rd.) during a busy afternoon on a weekday to slip inside the Tucson Mall 

shopping center and spend hours inside in hopes of avoiding apprehension. Defendant was 

proud of his criminal history in that he bragged to a motel clerk on several occasions by

showing her newspaper clippings of prior offenses which mentioned his name, as reflected 

in Paragraph 8 of the PSR.

Restitution is sought to reimburse the insurance company that paid the victim bank 

for its losses: CUNA Mutual Group in the amount of $8,385. (PSR ¶ 16.) The restitution 

should be sent to CUMIS Insurance Society, Inc., Claim B1082442, P.O. Box 1221, 

Madison, WI, 53701-1221. This insurance company paid the victim bank $3,385 for the 

loss incurred in the robbery. The victim bank had an insurance deductible of $5,000. The 

amount taken during the robbery was $8,384.84. Police officers retrieved $6,224 in cash 

and $1,000 worth of Pre-Paid Visa cards among the defendant’s possessions at the time of 

arrest. (PSR ¶ 9.) The money and Visa cards are still in the FBI evidence locker. As such, 

the insurance company’s restitution amount should be $8,385, minus the $6,224 in cash 

and the $1,000 in Pre-Paid Visa cards. Perhaps the FBI can be ordered to release the cash 

and Pre-Paid Visa cards to the insurance company toward the restitution amount. The 

insurance company will then pay the victim bank the $5,000 insurance deductible.

One of the bank teller victims, A.M., would like to address the Court at sentencing. 

The second bank teller victim, K.S.A., may be seeking restitution. She submitted a Victim 

Impact Statement. Paragraph 14 of the PSR notes that the victim stated that the trauma of 

the event created great stress and anxiety. She experiences lingering emotional trauma 

which took away her ability to do her job correctly. She feels anxious going into a bank. 

She changed jobs and her residence. She is requesting $5,000 in restitution. The sum is 

unaccounted for, thus far. She lost several days of work due to the emotional trauma she 

sustained, and the days lost were unpaid. If the sum continues to be unaccounted for, a 

restitution hearing may be needed. The United States will seek to obtain as much 

information regarding this restitution request by the sentencing date and will provide 

disclosure, if any, to defense counsel.
- 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

The recommended sentence of 262 months’ imprisonment (the bottom of the 

guideline range) with a five-year term of supervised release provides punishment for this 

violent armed bank robbery offense by a career criminal, adequate deterrence to criminal 

conduct, and provides protection to the community. The recommended sentence is viewed 

as sufficient, but not greater than necessary to promote respect for the law while providing 

just punishment for the offense. Despite the defendant’s age and physical condition, the 

defendant continues to pose a serious risk to the community and a risk to reoffend. The 

United States concurs with the PSR writer that considering the defendant committed the 

instant offense despite his physical and medical condition, a downward departure pursuant 

to USSG §5H1.4 is not recommended. 

For all the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully requests that the Court 

impose the above-recommended sentence of 262 months’ imprisonment, with a term of 

three years of supervised release to follow. Should the Court sustain either of the 

defendant’s objections, the government recommends a sentence at the top end of the 

corresponding sentencing guideline ranges for all the reasons mentioned above.

Respectfully submitted this 10th day of August, 2021.

GLENN B. McCORMICK

Acting United States Attorney

District of Arizona

s/Raquel Arellano

RAQUEL ARELLANO

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Copy of the foregoing served this 10th day of August, 2021, to:

Erin M. Carrillo, Esq. Attorney for the defendant 

Monica Lopez

U.S. Probation Officer