United States v. Jimenez ( 2023 )

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
United States of America, Clerk
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