USA v. Alejandro Jiminez, No. 08-3080 (7th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted July 22, 2009 Decided August 6, 2009 Before JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge No. 08-3080 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 06 CR 866-1 ALEJANDRO JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant. Wayne R. Andersen, Judge. ORDER Alejandro Jimenez pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and was sentenced to 60 months imprisonment. Jimenez filed a notice of appeal, but his appointed lawyer has moved to withdraw because after review of the record he states he has been unable to discern a nonfrivolous basis for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We invited Jimenez to respond to counsel s submission, see C IR. R. 51(b), but he has failed to do so. We limit our review to the issues considered in counsel s supporting brief. See United States v. Schuh, 289 F.3d 968, 973-74 (7th Cir. 2002). No. 08-3080 Page 2 Counsel tells us that Jimenez does not want his guilty plea vacated, and so counsel properly omits any discussion of the adequacy of the plea colloquy or the voluntariness of the plea. See United States v. Knox, 287 F.3d 667, 670-72 (7th Cir. 2002). Counsel identifies just one potential argument: whether Jimenez might challenge the reasonableness of his prison sentence. But because he distributed more than 500 grams of cocaine, Jimenez was subject to a mandatory minimum imprisonment term of 60 months. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). Aside from two exceptions that do not apply here 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f) a district court is not permitted to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum. See United States v. Forman, 553 F.3d 585, 588 (7th Cir. 2009). Any challenge to the sentence would be frivolous. Accordingly, counsel s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the appeal is DISMISSED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
