United States v. Jimenez
This text of United States v. Jimenez (United States v. Jimenez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case: 21-51181 Document: 00516641820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2023
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 21-51181 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ February 10, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Monica Jean Jimenez,
Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:21-CR-443-1 ______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Monica Jean Jimenez appeals the 120-month prison sentence imposed for her guilty plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. The 120-month sentence imposed was the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A).
_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 21-51181 Document: 00516641820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2023
No. 21-51181
Jimenez asserts that she was entitled to a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5H1.3 based on her history of trauma and various mental conditions and that her sentence was substantively unreasonable. We ordinarily lack authority to review a district court’s refusal to depart below a statutory minimum, but we may review de novo a district court’s decision that it lacked the authority to do so. See United States v. James, 468 F.3d 245, 246-47 (5th Cir. 2006). The Government did not move for a downward departure based on substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), and Jimenez was ineligible for a safety valve reduction under § 3553(f). See § 3553(f). Accordingly, the district court correctly determined that it lacked the authority to grant Jimenez’s request for a sentence below the mandatory minimum, and her sentence was therefore not unreasonable. See United States v. Phillips, 382 F.3d 489, 499 (5th Cir. 2004); see also United States v. Harper, 527 F.3d 396, 411 (5th Cir. 2008). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Jimenez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jimenez-ca5-2023.