USA v. Rettberg

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.
Sandra Rettberg,
Defendant.
No. CR-24-01485-001-TUC-JCH (JR)
ORDER
On September 19, 2025, a jury found Defendant Sandra Rettberg guilty of one
count of conspiracy to transport illegal aliens and two counts of transportation of illegal
aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(I) and (a)(1)(A)(ii). Doc. 108. On
February 24, 2026, the Court sentenced Defendant to 16 months in the Bureau of Prisons
followed by one year of supervised release. Doc. 120. Defendant subsequently appealed
her conviction and sentence (Doc. 127). Now before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for
Release Pending Appeal (Doc. 128). The Government did not respond. See generally
Docket.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b), a court shall order that a defendant who has been found
guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment be detained unless the judicial officer
makes two findings: (1) “by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to
flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released”; and
(2) “the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or
fact likely to result in” reversal, an order for a new trial, a sentence that does not include a
Case 4:24-cr-01485-JCH-JR Document 134 Filed 03/27/26 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
term of imprisonment, or a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total
of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.
1. Flight Risk and Dangerousness to the Community
Whether Defendant is flight risk or danger to the community is not at issue here. As
Defendant argues, the Presentence Report recommended Defendant be allowed to
voluntarily surrender because she is “not viewed as a flight risk or a danger to the
community.” Doc. 116 at 18. The Court necessarily adopted this finding when it ordered
Defendant to self-surrender. See Doc. 122. Accordingly, only the second prong is at issue.
2. Substantial Question
A substantial question is one that is “fairly debatable” or is “of more substance than
would be necessary to a finding that it was not frivolous.” United States v. Handy, 761 F.2d
1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 1985). Defendant need not show she is likely to succeed on appeal to
meet this threshold. United States v. Garcia, 340 F.3d 1013, 1020 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The
defendant, in other words, need not, under Handy, present an appeal that will likely be
successful, only a non-frivolous issue that, if decided in the defendant's favor, would likely
result in reversal or could satisfy one of the other conditions.”).
Still, Defendant has not shown her appeal raises a substantial question. Defendant’s
Motion for Release states that “[a]t sentencing one issue that was very important was
whether a 6-level enhancement based on USSG § 2L1.1(b)(6) should apply or not” and
describes each party’s stance on the enhancement and the Court’s ruling. Doc. 128 at 3–4.
The Motion does not explain why the Court’s application of the enhancement would be
subject to a non-frivolous appellate challenge. See United States v. Jones, No. CR-22-
01228-001-PHX-DWL, 2024 WL 69704, at *4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 5, 2024) (denying motion for
release pending appeal where “the motion merely identifie[d] the issues Defendant may
raise on appeal”). Because Defendant presented no arguments, she has not carried her
burden.
Further, Defendant carries a heavy burden to have the Court’s application of the
sentencing enhancement reversed. The Ninth Circuit reviews the Court’s factual findings
Case 4:24-cr-01485-JCH-JR Document 134 Filed 03/27/26 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
underlying a sentencing enhancement for clear error. United States v. Smith, 719 F.3d 1120,
1123 (9th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Bernardo, 818 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2016)
(district court’s finding that transporting an alien strapped inside a dashboard was
dangerous not clearly erroneous). The Court explained in its written order why it found
Defendant’s conduct dangerous: Defendant transported three aliens in the bed of her truck
enclosed by a hard, flat cover, fled from the checkpoint, and came to an abrupt stop despite
the unrestrained passengers. Doc. 122 at 3–4. Further, the Court pointed to cases in which
the Ninth Circuit had found similar conduct dangerous. Id. (citing United States v.
Hernandez-Guardo, 228 F.3d 1017, 1027–28 (9th Cir. 2000)). Given the evidence in this
case, it is unlikely Defendant will be able to raise a substantial question of whether the
Court clearly errored in its factual finding that Defendant’s conduct was dangerous.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying Defendant’s Motion for Release Pending Appeal
(Doc. 128).
Dated this 27th day of March, 2026.
Case 4:24-cr-01485-JCH-JR Document 134 Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of 3