United States v. Jaimez, No. 23-3189 (6th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Timothy Jaimez was found guilty of federal drug charges and sentenced to supervised release. Following several violations of the terms of his release, the district court sentenced him to sixty months' imprisonment. Jaimez appealed the decision, arguing that his sentence was both procedurally and substantively unreasonable.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit disagreed with Jaimez's arguments. Jaimez claimed that the court inadequately explained his sentence, improperly considered certain sentencing factors, and incorrectly classified his release violation. The appellate court found that the district court had sufficiently explained the sentence, correctly considered relevant sentencing factors, and accurately classified the release violation.
Jaimez also argued that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. He claimed that the court placed too much weight on his conduct underlying the release violation, inflicted "double punishment" by considering conduct for which he had already been punished in Ohio, and imposed a sentence that was too long in light of mitigating evidence. The appellate court disagreed with all of these points, finding that the district court had appropriately weighed Jaimez's conduct and that the sentence did not constitute "double punishment." The court also found that the sentence length was reasonable given the circumstances.
The appellate court upheld the district court's sentence of sixty months' imprisonment for Jaimez. The holding of the case is that the district court correctly considered the relevant sentencing factors, accurately classified the release violation, and imposed a reasonable sentence given the circumstances. The court affirmed the district court's decision.
Download PDF
RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 24a0052p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, > v. TIMOTHY MICHAEL JAIMEZ fka Timothy M. Watters, Defendant-Appellant. No. 23-3189 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo. No. 3:10-cr-00004-2—James G. Carr, District Judge. Decided and Filed: March 12, 2024 Before: GRIFFIN, THAPAR, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Andrew R. Schuman, Bowling Green, Ohio, Kevin M. Schad, FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant. Ava R. Dustin, Dexter Phillips, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Toledo, Ohio, for Appellee. _________________ OPINION _________________ THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Timothy Jaimez pled guilty to federal drug charges. After his second supervised-release violation, the district court sentenced him to sixty months’ imprisonment. Because that sentence is procedurally and substantively reasonable, we affirm. No. 23-3189 United States v. Jaimez Page 2 I. Timothy Jaimez pled guilty to conspiring to possess narcotics with the intent to distribute them. After serving time in prison, he began a term of supervised release. While on release, Jaimez used drugs, failed to maintain employment, and failed to truthfully disclose financial information to his probation officer. So a court revoked his release. When Jaimez began a second term of supervised release, his behavior didn’t improve. Police found him transporting marijuana in his car with the co-felons from his original conviction. And at Jaimez’s properties, police found cocaine base, a shell casing, and a drug press. Based on this conduct, an Ohio court found Jaimez guilty of attempting to traffic marijuana. The United States then sought to revoke Jaimez’s release. It alleged three violations: (1) being charged with a new crime, (2) associating with known felons, and (3) possessing drug paraphernalia. In line with probation’s report, the court classified Jaimez’s first violation as “Grade A” under the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(1). That carried a sentencing range of fifty-one to sixty months’ incarceration. See id. § 7B1.4(a); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Over Jaimez’s objection, the district court sentenced him to sixty months’ incarceration, followed by six years of supervised release. II. Jaimez now appeals, claiming his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Applying an abuse-of-discretion standard, we conclude that it’s neither. See United States v. Adams, 873 F.3d 512, 516–17 (6th Cir. 2017). A. Jaimez first challenges his sentence’s procedural reasonableness. He argues the court (1) inadequately explained his sentence, (2) improperly considered section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors, and (3) incorrectly classified his release violation as Grade A. Jaimez is wrong on all three counts. No. 23-3189 United States v. Jaimez Page 3 Adequate Explanation. A court need not “engage in a ritualistic incantation” of statutory sentencing factors. United States v. Chandler, 419 F.3d 484, 488 (6th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). Nor must a court explicitly address every factor. United States v. Collington, 461 F.3d 805, 809 (6th Cir. 2006). Rather, the record needs to show only that the court considered the applicable factors. United States v. McBride, 434 F.3d 470, 474 (6th Cir. 2006). Jaimez’s sentencing passes this very easy test. During sentencing, the court discussed Jaimez’s Guidelines range with the parties. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(4)(B), 3583(e). The court referenced Jaimez’s criminal history and previous release violations. See id. §§ 3553(a)(1), 3583(e). The court also sought to deter Jaimez and others from violating release conditions. See id. §§ 3553(a)(2)(B), 3583(e). And the court recognized a need to promote respect for the law and protect the public. See id. §§ 3553(a)(2)(A), (C), 3583(e); see also United States v. Lewis, 498 F.3d 393, 399 (6th Cir. 2007). Given this record, it’s clear the court considered the federal sentencing factors. Section 3553(a)(2)(A) Factors. Jaimez next takes issue with the factors the court did expressly consider: the seriousness of his offense, the promotion of respect for the law, and the provision of just punishment. Jaimez argues the court shouldn’t have considered these factors because the statute governing revocation doesn’t require it. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). But we’ve made clear that district courts may nonetheless consider these factors when imposing revocation sentences. See Lewis, 498 F.3d at 399–400; United States v. Esteras, 88 F.4th 1163, 1167–70 (6th Cir. 2023), reh’g en banc denied, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 981140 (6th Cir. 2024).1 Thus, it wasn’t unreasonable for the court to consider them here. Violation Grade. A release violation is “Grade A” if it involves drug conduct punishable by more than a year in prison. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.1(a)(1). Here, there was sufficient evidence of such conduct. First, police witnessed Jaimez and his co-felons transport “just under a kilogram” of marijuana in his car. R. 381, Pg. ID 2169. Second, Jaimez’s car smelled like marijuana, suggesting Jaimez—a past drug user—knew there were drugs in it. Third, an Ohio court found 1 Judge Griffin adheres to his dissent from the denial of the petition to rehear Esteras en banc. United States v. Esteras, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 981140, at *1 (6th Cir. 2024) (Griffin, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). No. 23-3189 United States v. Jaimez Page 4 Jaimez guilty of attempted marijuana trafficking, indicating he knew or had reason to know the marijuana was intended for resale. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2923.02(A) (noting that an “attempt” conviction means the defendant met any “knowledge” or “purpose” elements of the underlying crime); id. § 2925.03(A)(2) (defining mens rea for drug trafficking). Based on this evidence, a court could conclude Jaimez knowingly transported just under a kilogram of marijuana, aware it was intended for resale. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (setting a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard for revocation decisions). And under Ohio law, that’s punishable by over a year in prison.2 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2925.03(A)(2), (C)(3)(c), 2929.14(A)(4). Thus, the district court correctly graded Jaimez’s violation. B. Jaimez next alleges his sentence is substantively unreasonable. In particular, he argues the court (1) placed too much weight on the conduct underlying his release violation, (2) inflicted “double punishment” by considering conduct for which Ohio already punished him, and (3) imposed a sentence that was too long in light of mitigating evidence. Again, Jaimez is wrong on all three counts. Jaimez’s Violative Conduct. At sentencing, the district court “keyed in” on the conduct underlying Jaimez’s release violation. Appellant Suppl. Br. 2. For good reason: Jaimez was originally convicted for conspiring to distribute drugs, and he had previously violated his supervised release by using drugs. Given this background, the conduct underlying his most recent violation—transporting drugs with the intent to resell them—was particularly relevant. When imposing revocation sentences, courts may consider the need to promote deterrence and respect for the law. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(A)–(B), 3583(e); see Lewis, 498 F.3d at 399. Jaimez’s most recent violation demonstrated a flagrant lack of both. Thus, it was reasonable for the court to give substantial weight to that violation at sentencing. Cf. United States v. Zobel, 696 F.3d 558, 571–72 (6th Cir. 2012). 2 Ohio found Jaimez guilty of only a misdemeanor-level marijuana offense. But when a federal court grades a release violation, it considers the defendant’s actual conduct, not just the record of conviction. United States v. Montgomery, 893 F.3d 935, 940 (6th Cir. 2018). No. 23-3189 United States v. Jaimez Page 5 Double Punishment. Jaimez next argues he received “double punishment” for his drugtrafficking activity. Appellant Suppl. Br. 3. But this presents no error, either. To be sure, Ohio already punished Jaimez for the drug-related conduct that the district court considered at sentencing. But that’s the point: the Sentencing Guidelines explicitly tell courts to consider the criminal nature of a release violation. See U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.1(a), .4(a). And the Supreme Court has long held that federal and state governments may separately punish an individual for the same conduct. See, e.g., Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 88 (1985); Fox v. Ohio, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 410, 435 (1847). Jaimez’s argument also fails for a simpler reason: revocation sentences are never “punishment” for a release violation. Rather, these sentences are “part of the penalty for the initial offense”—in this case, Jaimez’s original narcotics-distribution conspiracy. Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 700–01 (2000). Indeed, even when a court expressly considers the conduct underlying a release violation, we don’t interpret the resulting sentence as “punishment” for that conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195, 203 (6th Cir. 2011) (holding that a revocation sentence is a “sanction” for a defendant’s “breach of trust,” not a “punishment for [his] violation” (citation omitted)); United States v. Jones, 81 F.4th 591, 602 n.7 (6th Cir. 2023) (same); Esteras, 88 F.4th at 1170 (holding that a court’s consideration of violative conduct doesn’t make a revocation sentence punitive, even when the court uses the word “punishment”). Thus, the district court’s sentence didn’t “double punish” Jaimez for his violation. Sentence Length. At the outset, we presume Jaimez’s within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. See Jones, 81 F.4th at 602. Jaimez contends otherwise. He argues the court shouldn’t have applied the maximum sentence because his release violations could have been worse. He also asserts that he’s been trying to “rebuild[] his life.” Reply Br. 3. And he emphasizes that he didn’t contest his release violations or his Ohio drug charge. This, he claims, demonstrates his “remorse.” Id. But Jaimez’s arguments aren’t enough to establish unreasonableness. The fact Jaimez could’ve committed a worse offense doesn’t render the statutory maximum unreasonable. Every drug trafficker could have shipped more drugs, just like every murderer could have killed an additional person. That doesn’t mean courts should never apply a maximum sentence. No. 23-3189 United States v. Jaimez Page 6 Nor can Jaimez show unreasonableness by arguing he would have given more weight to mitigating evidence. See United States v. Ely, 468 F.3d 399, 404 (6th Cir. 2006). And even if he could, his mitigating evidence is paper-thin. While his words suggested remorse, his conduct did not. At Jaimez’s last revocation hearing, the court warned him that he’d receive a sixty-month sentence if he didn’t straighten out his act. That didn’t stop Jaimez from continuing to flout the law. And at some point, protecting the public must trump a defendant’s desire to “rebuild his life.” This is one such case. * We affirm. * *
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.
