Free Response - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT C
Case 2:O4—cr—OO859-FJIVI Document 62-5 Filed O7/25/2006 Page1 0f3

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, ) CR 04-0859-PHX-FJM
>
vs. ) Phoenix, Arizona
) April 18, 2005
ALFONSO ARREGUIN-BELTRAN, ) 3:32 p.m.
)
Defendant. )
)

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE FREDERICK J. MARTONE, JUDGE
REPORTER•S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
SENTENCING
APPEARANCES:
For the Government:
U.S. Attorney's Office
By: ANDREW CHARLES PACHECO, ESQ.
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85004
For the Defendant Arreguin-Beltran:
Kent & Ryan
By: CANDACE HEWITT KENT, ESQ.
45 West Jefferson Street, Suite 206
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Official Court Reporter:
Linda Schroeder, RDR, CRR
Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 312
401 West Washington Street, Spc. 32
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151
(602) 322-7249
Proceedings Reported by Stenographic Court Reporter
Transcript Prepared by Computer-Aided Transcription
Case 2:04—cr—00859-FJI\/I Document 62-5 Filed 07/25/2006 Page 2 of 3

15
5 1 discretion under Booker under that section is appropriate in
2 this case.
3 The defendant's motion for a downward departure under
4 Section 5K2.2O is denied for two reasons. One, it's a serious
5 drug—trafficking offense, and, secondly, there was some pretty
6 significant planning here. In fact, the nature of the
7 offense, the amount of the drugs involved, and the special
8 compartment in the vehicle all suggest that this was not
9 aberrant behavior either within the meaning of the guidelines
10 or within anybody's ordinary sense.
11 It's puzzling here. This case is puzzling. And
12 because the Court's questions really remain unanswered, I
13 don't think it would be wise to speculate and exercise
Q 14 discretion under Booker to go above or beyond or below, as the
15 case may be, the guideline range, because at least within the
16 guideline range we have some degree of predictability and some
17 protection against unwarranted sentencing disparity, even if
18 we don't have a clear understanding of how this particular
19 crime occurred.
2O I've considered the factors in 18 U.S.C. Section
21 3553, including the nature of the offense. It's a pretty
22 serious offense.
23 I've considered the history of the defendant, which
24 is none, none history. There's no history here.
25 The sentence is supposed to reflect the seriousness
y UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 2:O4—cr—OO859-FJIVI Document 62-5 Filed O7/25/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00859-FJM

Document 62-5

Filed 07/25/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00859-FJM

Document 62-5

Filed 07/25/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cr-00859-FJM

Document 62-5

Filed 07/25/2006

Page 3 of 3