USA v. Valenzuela-Muro

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Miguel Guillermo Valenzuela-Muro,
Defendant.
No. CR-25-01135-PHX-GMS
ORDER
Pending before the Court are the Government’s Motions in Limine to Admit
Certified Records Without Requiring Live Testimony by Records Custodians (Doc. 29),
Prohibit Argument that Defendant was Not Required to Obtain Consent to Reenter the
United States (Doc. 30), and Preclude Collateral Attack of Defendant’s Prior Removal
(Doc. 31). The Court heard the parties’ arguments at the final pretrial conference on
October 1, 2025. At the conference, the Court made rulings on the Government’s three
motions on the record. (Doc. 35). This Order serves to memorialize those rulings. (Id.).
A. Motion to Admit Certified Records Without Requiring Live Testimony by
Records Custodians
First, the Government moved to admit the following eight documents from
Defendant’s Alien file (“A-file”), pursuant to the public records exception to the hearsay
rule under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8):
1. Form I-867A, Record of Sworn Statement by Defendant,
dated May 10, 2016 (“Exhibit 1”). (Doc. 29-1 at 1-5).
2. Form I-867B, Jurat for Record of Sworn Statement by
Case 2:25-cr-01135-GMS Document 46 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 3

- 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
Defendant, dated May 10, 2016 (“Exhibit 2”). (Id. at 6-8).
3. 10-print fingerprint exemplar of Defendant, dated May 9,
2016 (“Exhibit 3”). (Id. at 9-12).
4. Form I-296, Notice to Alien Ordered Removed/Departure
Verification, dated May 10, 2016, and Departure
Verification, dated May 13, 2016 (“Exhibit 4”). (Id. at 13-
15).
5. Form I-860, Notice and Order of Expedited Removal, dated
May 10, 2016 (“Exhibit 5”). (Id. at 16-18).
6. 10-print fingerprint exemplar of Defendant, dated August
1, 2025 (“Exhibit 6”). (Id. at 19-22).
7. Mexico Census Document for the Defendant, dated July 11,
2025 (“Exhibit 7”). (Id. at 23-25).
8. Mexico Voter Registration Identification for the Defendant
(“Exhibit 8”). (Id. at 26-28).
Defendant only argued that the Government’s motion should be denied with regard to the
two foreign documents: Exhibits 7 and 8. (Doc. 33). Defendant did not contest that
Exhibits 1 through 6 are admissible under the public records exception. (Id.).
The Court granted the Government’s motion with regard to the first six documents,
given the lack of opposition from Defendant. Additionally, at the status conference, the
Government stated that it had conferred with Defendant’s counsel and that it was
withdrawing its request to admit Exhibits 7 and 8 under Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). The Court
thus denied the Government’s motion with regard to Exhibits 7 and 8.
B. Motion in Limine to Prohibit Argument that Defendant was Not Required
to Obtain Consent to Reenter the United States
Second, the Government moved to preclude Defendant from arguing at trial “that
reentry more than five years after his prior deportation—without the consent of the
Attorney General or Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security—operates as a
complete defense to an 8 U.S.C. § 1326 charge.” (Doc. 30 at 1). Defendant opposed the
Government’s motion. (Doc. 34).
The Court denied the Government’s motion. Since the Government’s motion raised
Case 2:25-cr-01135-GMS Document 46 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 3

- 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
a purely legal issue, the Court afforded Defendant the opportunity to present his argument
at trial.
C. Motion in Limine to Preclude Collateral Attack of Defendant’s Prior
Removal
Lastly, the Government moved to preclude Defendant from collaterally attacking
his May 2016 removal order because “the issue should have been fully litigated prior to
trial through a pre-trial motion challenging the lawfulness of the removal order under 8
U.S.C. § 1326(d).” (Doc 31 at 1-2 (citing United States v. Hernandez-Rojas, 617 F.2d 533,
535 (9th Cir. 1980))). Defendant did not file a response to the Government’s motion in
limine.
The Court granted the Government’s motion. At the status conference, counsel for
Defendant stated that he did not object to the Government’s motion.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, and for the reasons stated on the record
on October 1, 2025,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to Admit
Certified Records Without Requiring Live Testimony by Records Custodians (Doc. 29) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government’s Motion In Limine to Prohibit
Argument that Defendant was Not Required to Obtain Consent to Reenter the United States
(Doc. 30) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Government’s Motion In Limine to
Preclude Collateral Attack of Defendant’s Prior Removal (Doc. 31) is GRANTED.
Dated this 14th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cr-01135-GMS Document 46 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 3