USA v. Jimenez, No. 21-51181 (5th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 Clerk United States of America, 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. 2

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.