USA v. Arvizu-Sanchez

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,
vs.
Benigno Arvizu-Sanchez,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CR 25-5366-TUC-CKJ
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Waive Pre-Sentence Investigation Report
(Doc. 18) filed by Defendant Benigno Arvizu-Sanchez ("Arvizu-Sanchez"). Arvizu-Sanchez
asserts:
Prior deported defendants who have remained in their home country for a period
exceeding five years are receiving greater sentences than similarly situated defendants
who have returned to the United States in less than five years after their most recent
deportation. It seems the defendants who refrain from recidivism for a longer period
should get less time than those who return sooner, and not vice a versa.
Motion (Doc. 18, p. 2). Arvizu-Sanchez argues if the pre-sentence report ("PSR") is waived
in cases where a defendant was deported over five years prior, the resultant sentence would
reduce the disparity between those deported more or less than five years prior.
Arvizu-Sanchez asserts he was deported in 2011, has no criminal history, and came
to the United States to work in the fields to earn more money than he can in Mexico. Arvizu-
Sanchez requests the Court order the PSR requirement be waived to allow him to be
sentenced by the Court shortly after he pleads guilty to the offense charged. Further, the
Motion states the government does not object to the request.
Case 4:25-cr-05366-CKJ-JR Document 19 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 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
- 2 -
The applicable rule states:
(1) Required Investigation.
(A) In General. The probation officer must conduct a presentence
investigation and submit a report to the court before it imposes sentence
unless:
(i) 18 U.S.C. §3593 (c) or another statute requires otherwise; or
(ii) the court finds that the information in the record enables it to
meaningfully exercise its sentencing authority under 18 U.S.C. §3553,
and the court explains its finding on the record.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(c); see also United States Sentencing Guidelines § 6A1.1(b) ("defendant
may not waive preparation of the presentence report"). Further, the plea agreement in this
case states:
The Court is required to consider the Sentencing Guidelines in determining the
defendant's sentence. However, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, and the
Court is free to exercise its discretion to impose any reasonable sentence up to the
maximum set by statute for the crime( s) of conviction, unless there are stipulations
to the contrary that the Court accepts.
Plea Agreement (Doc. 16, p. 2). The statute to which Arvizu-Sanchez pleaded guilty, 8
U.S.C. § 1326(a), is punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of two (2) years.
However, the parties have stipulated to a sentence that does "not exceed the high-end of the
final advisory Sentencing Guidelines Range[.]" Plea Agreement (Doc. 16, p. 3).
The Ninth Circuit has stated:
Presentence reports are required because "[r]eliable fact-finding is essential to
procedural due process and to the accuracy and uniformity of sentencing." Guideline
Chapter 6A, Introductory Commentary. "Under the sentencing guidelines, the
presentence report and the defendant's objections to that report are essential
considerations in proper sentencing. The report forms the factual basis for the judge's
sentencing determination."
United States v. Turner, 905 F.2d 300, 301 (9th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds,
quoting United States v. Burch, 873 F.2d 765, 767 (5th Cir.1989). Further, the drafters of
Rule 32(c)(1) noted:
The requirement of reasons on the record for not having a presentence report is
intended to make clear that such a report ought to be routinely required except in
cases where there is a reason for not doing so. The presentence report is of great value
for correctional purposes and will serve as a valuable aid in reviewing sentences to
the extent that sentence review may be authorized by future rule change.
Case 4:25-cr-05366-CKJ-JR Document 19 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 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
- 3 -
Fed.R.Crim.P. 32, Advisory Committee Notes, 1974 Amendment. "Because of the
importance Congress and the Sentencing Commission have attached to the preparation of
presentence reports," the Ninth Circuit held "strict compliance with § 6A1.1 and Rule
32(c)(1) is required." Turner, 905 F.2d at 301, citations omitted.
The Court finds it cannot meaningfully exercise its sentencing authority under 18
U.S.C. § 3553 without a review and consideration of a PSR in this case. United States v.
Turner, 816 F. Supp. 1102, 1103 (E.D. Va. 1993) ("interest of justice will be better served
if [defendant] is not sentenced until after the court has reviewed the presentence report").
However, the Court recognizes a defendant may waive the ten-day period to review
the PSR. See 18 U.S.C. § 3552(d) (ten day minimum period may be waived by defendant).
As Arvizu-Sanchez has not requested to waive this time period, the Court does not find it
appropriate to sua sponte reduce this time. The Court advises Arvizu-Sanchez such a
request/waiver would be well-taken.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Waive Pre-Sentence Investigation
Report (Doc. 18) is DENIED.
DATED this 14th day of January, 2026.
Case 4:25-cr-05366-CKJ-JR Document 19 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 3