Free Sentencing Memorandum - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona MARY BETH PFISTER Assistant U.S. Attorney Two Renaissance Square 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Arizona State Bar No. 015103 Telephone (602) 514-7500 [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Eliseo Zapata-Rodriguez, Defendant. The United States of America, through counsel undersigned, submits the following
UNITED STATES' SENTENCING MEMORANDUM CR-03-573-PHX-EHC

15 memorandum in anticipation of defendant's re-sentencing on March 13, 2006. 16 I. 17 Relevant Background Defendant pled guilty to the Indictment charging him with Illegal Re-Entry After

18 Deportation on October 14, 2003, the day before his trial was scheduled to begin. There was no 19 plea agreement. Based on a total offense level 22 and criminal history category VI, the pre20 sentence report ("PSR") calculated his guideline sentencing range as 84-105 months and 21 recommended a sentence of imprisonment of 105 months. The Court sentenced defendant to 94 22 months. Defendant appealed, and the Ninth Circuit remanded for re-sentencing in light of its
th 23 decision in United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9 Cir. 2005)(en banc).

24 II. Government's Sentencing Recommendation 25 According to 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the Court should consider a variety of factors in sentencing 26 defendant including the following: 27 (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the 28 defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed
Case 2:03-cr-00573-EHC Document 85 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 1 of 3

1

(a) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law and to provide just

2 punishment; 3 4 5 (b) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; (c) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (d) to provide defendant with needed training and care;

6 (3) the kinds of sentences available; 7 (4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for the applicable category of 8 offense as set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines; 9 (5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission; 10 (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records 11 who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and 12 (7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. 13 A number of facts are relevant in determining defendant's sentence in this case. Defendant

14 has an extensive criminal history and 16 total criminal history points. See PSR ¶ 32. He has 15 nine adult convictions in the United States including 2 convictions for domestic violence, 3 for 16 burglary, and 2 for controlled substance offenses. See PSR ¶¶ 22-30. The last steady job that 17 the defendant even claims to have had was 15 years ago, and no confirmation of that job was 18 received. See PSR ¶ 47. He has been removed from the United States on at least four occasions 19 yet continues to return to this country and commit crimes. See PSR ¶¶ 21, 24, 29, 30. 20 Defendant's family complains about his drug use, but he claims not to need treatment. See PSR 21 ¶ 44. As noted by the PSR, "[t]he defendant's repetitive criminal history suggests that he is a 22 major risk to the community and poses a high likelihood to re-offend." See PSR Sentencing 23 Recommendation. 24 25 26 27 28
2 Case 2:03-cr-00573-EHC Document 85 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 2 of 3

1

Considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, especially the range of imprisonment

2 set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines, defendant's history, and the need to promote respect for 3 the law, provide adequate deterrence, and protect the public, a sentence of 105 months 4 imprisonment is both reasonable and appropriate. The government, therefore, concurs with the 5 PSR's recommendation and asks the Court to sentence defendant accordingly. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
S/ Raquel Lopez
I hereby certify that on March 7, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Eugene Marquez Attorney for Defendant

Respectfully submitted this 7th day of March, 2006. PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona S/ Mary Beth Pfister MARY BETH PFISTER Assistant U.S. Attorney

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3 Case 2:03-cr-00573-EHC Document 85 Filed 03/07/2006 Page 3 of 3