United States v. Joel Jiminez

636 F. App'x 618
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 28, 2010
Docket09-20596
StatusUnpublished

This text of 636 F. App'x 618 (United States v. Joel Jiminez) 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.

Bluebook
United States v. Joel Jiminez, 636 F. App'x 618 (5th Cir. 2010).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Joel Miranda Jiminez pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been removed following conviction for an aggravated felony. He seeks automatic re-sentencing because the district court erroneously believed that it was constrained by our precedent to deny a cultural assimilation downward departure because of his extensive, violent criminal history.

At sentencing, the district court conducted a thorough review of the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the relevant case law. The district court concluded that Jiminez’s motion for a downward departure should be denied in light of his history of violent offenses. Contrary to Jiminez’s assertion, however, the district court did not state that our prior precedent prevented it from granting the motion. Rather, it treated those cases as persuasive authority and concluded that a downward departure was not warranted in this case. The district court’s denial was not “based on the mistaken belief that the court lacked discretion to depart.” United States v. Garay, 235 F.3d 230, 232 (5th Cir.2000), Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s decision that a downward departure was unwarranted. United States v. Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir.2000).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Thames
214 F.3d 608 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Garay
235 F.3d 230 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
636 F. App'x 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-joel-jiminez-ca5-2010.