United States v. Jimenez

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.