United States v. Jimenez

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: March 16, 2026
• Docket: 25-10766
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-10766 Document: 98-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 25-10766 March 16, 2026 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Janet Jimenez,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:21-CR-23-1 ______________________________

Before Higginbotham, Engelhardt, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Janet Jimenez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. On appeal, she contends that she received ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to seek a U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(18) safety valve proffer or reduction on her behalf. The Government has filed a

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-10766 Document: 98-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2026

No. 25-10766

motion to dismiss, arguing that Jimenez’s safety-valve claim is barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion. Despite the Government’s assertions to the contrary, Jimenez’s safety-valve claim is not barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion because it is not identical to the ineffective assistance claim that Jimenez raised in her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate. See Rabo Agrifinance, Inc. v. Terra XXI, Ltd., 583 F.3d 348, 353 (5th Cir. 2009). Moreover, we generally do not review claims of ineffective assistance on direct appeal. United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006). Jimenez did not raise her safety-valve claim before the district court on direct appeal, and the record does not provide sufficient detail to allow the court to assess counsel’s effectiveness at this stage. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, we decline to consider this claim, without prejudice to Jimenez’s right to raise it on collateral review. See id. Given the foregoing, we DENY the Government’s motion to dismiss and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.