govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cr-00395-105

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 
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 
United States Attorney 
RICHARD J. BENDER 
Assistant United States Attorney 
501 I Street, Suite 10-100 
Sacramento, CA 95831 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
United States of America 
 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
 v. 
 
LUIS EDUARDO SANCHEZ, 
 
 Defendants. 
 
 
 
CASE NO. 2:10-CR-0395 LKK 
 
STIPULATION CONCERNING TERM OF 
SUPERVISED RELEASE IN SENTENCE OF 
DEFENDANT LUIS EDUARDO SANCHEZ; 
ORDER 
 
 
This matter came on for sentencing in open court on August 5, 2014. The defendant was present 
with his attorney Edward R. Ramirez, Jr., and the United States was represented by Assistant U.S. 
Attorney Richard Bender. At that time the Court orally imposed a sentence as to defendant Luis Eduardo 
Sanchez of six months in custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) followed by a three year term of 
supervised release (TSR). This was done at the in-court suggestion of the Probation Officer as opposed 
to the suggestion of government counsel which was, three-years Probation including a condition of six 
months in the custody of the BOP. It turns out that both suggestions were ill-advised because the 
maximum TSR that can be imposed on the charge in the Superseding Information to which the defendant 
pled guilty (a telephone count in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b)) is one year. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3559 and 
3583. Further, the government’s suggested sentence probably could not legally be imposed because it 
appears that a period of incarceration (as opposed to intermittent incarceration or home confinement) 
// 
// 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
cannot be imposed as a condition of probation under 18 U.S.C. § 3563.1 So, how do we 
fix this? 
 
Counsel have conferred with each other and with the Probation Office and suggest that the Court 
impose a sentence of six months in custody of the Bureau of Prison, followed by a 5 month Term of 
Supervised Release. The reason for the requested shorter term of supervised release is that the 
defendant, with the advice of his immigration attorney, believes that a total sentence of less than a year 
(incarceration plus TSR) will substantially increase the likelihood that he will not be deported, which is a 
main consideration of the defendant.2 In the normal case, the government would balk at the suggestion, 
since post-release supervision is usually imperative both to insure the safety of the community and to 
help the defendant’s transition back into the community. Here, however, as pointed out by the defendant 
at the sentencing hearing, he has been on Pre-Trial supervision for four years and, according to ¶ 8 of the 
PSR, has done so without incident and while maintaining regular employment. The defendant will have 
every incentive to avoid reverting to criminal activity while his immigration consequences are sorted out. 
Thus, government counsel is inclined to agree with the request of defense counsel and recommend that 
the Court impose a sentence of six months incarceration followed by five months of TSR (including all 
the conditions stated at the sentencing hearing). 
Therefore, the parties request that the sentence orally imposed in this case on August 5, 2014, be 
amended, and that the final judgment as to this defendant reflect, that the defendant is sentenced to six 
months in the custody of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, with a Term of Supervised Release of 5 months to 
follow after his release from custody, with all of the standard conditions and special conditions of TSR 
orally imposed on August 5, 2014 to remain the same. The parties waive whatever right might exist to 
have a resentencing in open Court, since, in effect, this would simply reduce the period of the defendant’s 
TSR with the remainder of the sentence remaining the same. 
 
// 
 
1 The “split-sentence” provision contained in 18 U.S.C. § 3651, used during the Pre-Sentencing 
Guideline days, was repealed around the time of the Sentencing Reform Act. However, 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3563(22) appears to be a catch all provision that might allow a court to impose a period of incarceration 
as a condition to probation. 
2 Government counsel does not share defense counsel’s optimism and expresses no opinion 
concerning the immigration consequences of the suggested sentence. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
[Stip./Order Reducing Term of Supervised Release as to defendant Sanchez, page three] 
 
 
Dated: August 13, 2014 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 
 U . S . A t t o r n e y 
 
 by /s/ Richard J. Bender 
 R I C H A R D J . B E N D E R 
 A s s i s t a n t U . S . A t t o r n e y 
 
 
Dated: August 13, 2014 /s/ Edward Ramirez 
 E D W A R D R A M I R E Z 
 Attorney for Luis Eduardo Sanchez 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
It is so ORDERED, 
 
This 19th day of August, 2014 
 

Passage view · GavelSight