United States of America v. Barrientes

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.
Jeremy Keith Barrientes,
Defendant.
No. CR-03-00898-001-PHX-JAT
ORDER
On January 20, 2026, Defendant Jeremy Keith Barrientes filed an untitled,
handwritten note. (Doc. 57 at 1). Therein, Defendant states that “[i]t would bring [him]
great joy to conclude this matter to all parties in satisfaction with all records forever
sealed.” (Doc. 57 at 2). The Court interprets the filing as a Motion to Seal Defendant’s
criminal record. The Government filed a Response, and Defendant filed a reply. (Docs. 59,
60).
The Government’s Response summarizes the history of the case as follows:
On August 3, 2004, Jeremy Keith Barrientes was convicted of
Use/Brandishing of a Firearm During a Crime of Violence, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). (Doc. 35.) He was sentenced to 84 months’
imprisonment, to be followed by five years of supervised release. (Id.)
While on supervised release, Barrientes was charged with committing Armed
Robbery and Misconduct Involving Weapons. He pled guilty to those
charges and, on November 9, 2012, was sentenced to 21 years in prison at
the Arizona Department of Corrections. His current projected release date is
October 27, 2028. See Arizona Department of Corrections Inmate Data
Search, https://corrections.az.gov/inmate-data-search (last visited May 28,
2025).
Case 2:03-cr-00898-JAT Document 61 Filed 03/23/26 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
Because of those Maricopa County charges, a petition to revoke Barrientes’
supervised release was filed on September 22, 2010. The petition alleged that
he committed a new crime while on supervised release. Because of that
pending petition, Barrientes has a federal detainer lodged against him. That
detainer was last updated on September 25, 2020. Id.
On May 9, 2025, Jeremy Barrientes submitted a letter to the Court asserting
his speedy trial rights and giving notice of a Sixth Amendment claim. (Doc.
47.) On July 1, 2025, Barrientes’ motion was denied. (Doc. 53.)
(Doc. 59 at 1–2).
Regarding Defendant’s Motion, the Government notes “it is unclear what exactly
[Defendant] Barrientes is asking for.” (Doc. 59 at 2). The Government argues that, to the
extent Defendant, by seeking to “conclude this matter to all parties in satisfaction,” is
making another request to assert his speedy trial rights, the request should be denied for
the reasons previously stated by this Court. (See Docs. 42, 53). To the extent Defendant’s
letter is requesting that his entire case file be sealed, the Government argues this request
should also be denied because Defendant has failed to offer any compelling reason to
overcome the strong presumption of public access to court records. (Doc. 59 at 2–3). The
Court agrees.
In federal court, “there is ‘a strong presumption in favor of access to court records’”
that can be overcome “only by showing a ‘compelling reason.’” United States v. Sleugh,
896 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). Compelling reasons “exist when
such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of
records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or
release trade secrets.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th
Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). “[A] litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to
further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
Here, the Court does not find a compelling reason to seal Defendant’s conviction
record. Defendant has not identified any facts suggesting that his court records are being
used for an improper purpose. He offers no compelling interest that would be harmed
absent sealing, and he fails to explain why any alternative to sealing would be inadequate.
Furthermore, this case has been active since November 15, 2002—more than 23 years—
Case 2:03-cr-00898-JAT Document 61 Filed 03/23/26 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
and Defendant fails to show why the entire matter would need to be sealed now. See
Oregonian Pub. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465–66 (9th Cir.
1990) (documents in a criminal proceeding may be closed to the public only if closure
serves a compelling interest, there is a substantial probability that the interest would be
harmed absent closure, and there are no adequate alternatives).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 57) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no cause having been shown to file under seal,
Docs. 57 and 58 are unsealed.
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2026.
cc: Dft.
Case 2:03-cr-00898-JAT Document 61 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 3