USA v. Arana

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.
Alexander James Arana,
Defendant.
No. CR-24-08338-001-TUC-JCH
ORDER
On October 24, 2025, a Petition to Revoke Supervised Release issued in this case
alleging Defendant had violated Mandatory Condition No. 1 of his supervised release by
committing a federal, state, or local crime. Doc. 45. Defendant denied the allegations,
see Docs. 48, 52, and Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald held an evidentiary hearing
on January 27, 2026, see Doc. 53. Before the Court is Judge Macdonald’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 57), recommending the Court find Defendant committed
a federal, state, or local crime and thus violated the terms of his supervised release. Neither
party objected to the R&R. The Court will adopt the R&R in full.
A district court reviews objected-to portions of an R&R de novo. 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617
(9th Cir. 1989). Failure to timely object may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to
de novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's
findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” (emphasis
Case 4:24-cr-08338-JCH Document 58 Filed 02/25/26 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
in original)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition
(“[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate
judge).
After independent review, the Court is satisfied that Judge Macdonald’s
recommendation is sound. The evidence shows that on October 21, 2025, Defendant was
in possession of and was attempting to exit the United States with a vehicle that had
recently been reported as stolen. The damage to the underside of the vehicle’s dashboard
and the generic key fob were signs that the vehicle was stolen, and though Defendant stated
he had just bought the vehicle, he could provide no additional information and proof of
sale. Under Arizona law, “[p]roof of possession of property recently stolen, unless
satisfactorily explained, may give rise to an inference that the person in possession of the
property was aware of the risk that it had been stolen or in some way participated in its
theft.” A.R.S. § 13-2305(1). Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence1 shows that
Defendant violated A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(5) because he “[c]ontrol[ed] another person’s
means of transportation knowing or having reason to know that the property [was] stolen.”
The Court will adopt the R&R in full.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED adopting in full the R&R (Doc. 57). Allegations A2 and A3 in
the Petition to Revoke Supervised Release (Doc. Doc. 45) are dismissed. The Court finds
Defendant did commit the state crime alleged in Allegation A1 and thus violated
Mandatory Condition No. 1 of his supervised release.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the U.S. Probation Office to prepare a
disposition report.
///
///
1 A court may revoke a term of supervised release if the court “finds by a preponderance
of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release.”18 U.S.C.
§ 3583(e)(3).
Case 4:24-cr-08338-JCH Document 58 Filed 02/25/26 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
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Final Disposition Hearing for March 24,
2026, at 10:20 a.m. before the Hon. John C. Hinderaker.
Dated this 24th day of February, 2026.
Case 4:24-cr-08338-JCH Document 58 Filed 02/25/26 Page 3 of 3