USA v. Bogart

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.
Misty Vilet Bogart,
Defendant.
No. CR-22-01436-001-TUC-JCH (LAB)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion requesting that she be writ into federal
custody to address the detainer against her for her supervised release violation. Doc. 43.
In 2022, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to transport illegal
aliens for profit in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I), (a)(1)(A)(ii), and
(a)(1)(B)(i). Doc. 40. The Court sentenced Defendant to 24 months in the Bureau of Prisons
followed by 36 months of supervised release. Id. On May 30, 2025, U.S. Probation filed a
Petition to Revoke Supervised release alleging Defendant committed several state crimes.
Doc. 41. An arrest warrant issued. Doc. 42. Defendant was thereafter convicted in Cochise
County of theft of means of transportation and endangerment and is serving a 10-year
sentence.1 Her projected release date is December 2033. Id.
Defendant states that, because of the pending federal detainer, she is being held in
the “max yard” and accordingly, has few programing and employment opportunities. Doc.
1 Arizona 	Department 	of 	Corrections, 	Inmate 	Data 	Search,
https://corrections.az.gov/inmate-data-search.
Case 4:22-cr-01436-JCH-LAB Document 48 Filed 06/22/26 Page 1 of 2

- 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
43.2 The Government responds that “no grounds require this Court to initiate federal
supervised release violation proceedings to clear the detainer that is in place when the
defendant completes her state sentence.” Doc. 46 at 1. The Government further argues that
“[t]he defendant’s state arrest and convictions do not require the commencement of federal
supervised release proceedings,” and “[n]o statutory or constitutional provisions compel
her to be taken into federal custody before her state custody ends.” Doc. 46 at 3.
The Court agrees with the Government. The Government is not required “to writ a
defendant out of state custody and bring [her] before the federal district court for [her]
revocation hearing . . . which would be extremely burdensome.” United States v. Garrett,
253 F.3d 443, 450 (9th Cir. 2001) (Id.). Further, there is no constitutional or statutory
authority requiring the Court to order the prompt resolution of Defendant’s supervised
release violation. The U.S. Marshal’s Service has a detainer against Defendant and will
transport her to federal custody after her release from state custody, at which point the
Court will resolve her pending supervised release violation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion (Doc. 43).
Dated this 18th day of June, 2026.
2 According to the Arizona Department of Corrections, Defendant’s custody class is
“medium/moderate.” 	Arizona 	Department 	of 	Corrections, 	Inmate 	Data 	Search,
https://corrections.az.gov/inmate-data-search.
Case 4:22-cr-01436-JCH-LAB Document 48 Filed 06/22/26 Page 2 of 2