Filed: Apr. 27, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-27-2009 USA v. Pablo Jimenez Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2092 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "USA v. Pablo Jimenez" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1479. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1479 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of t
Summary: Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-27-2009 USA v. Pablo Jimenez Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-2092 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009 Recommended Citation "USA v. Pablo Jimenez" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1479. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1479 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of th..
More
Opinions of the United
2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-27-2009
USA v. Pablo Jimenez
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-2092
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Pablo Jimenez" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1479.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1479
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 08-2092
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
PABLO JIMENEZ,
Appellant
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 3:04-cr-355-4)
District Judge: Honorable A. Richard Caputo
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
on March 10, 2009
____________
Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Filed April 27, 2009)
OPINION OF THE COURT
ALDISERT, Circuit Judge.
This appeal by Pablo Jimenez requires us to decide whether the sentence imposed
following his plea of guilty to a charge of conspiracy was unreasonable. Jimenez was
sentenced to 130 months, a non-Guideline sentence of 38 months below the applicable
Guidelines minimum, on the charge of possessing with intent to distribute more than 500
grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846.
We hold that the sentence was reasonable and will affirm.1
I.
Because we write only for the parties, who are familiar with the facts, procedural
history and contentions presented, we will not recite the facts except as necessary to the
discussion.
This Court has set forth a three-step sentencing procedure for a district court to
follow post-Booker: (1) sentencing courts must first calculate the applicable Guideline
sentence; (2) in so doing, “they must formally rule on the motions of both parties and
state on the record whether they are granting a departure and how that departure affects
the Guidelines calculation,” taking into account pre-Booker case law, which has advisory
force; and (3) “they are required to exercise their discretion by considering the relevant §
3553(a) factors in setting the sentence they impose regardless whether it varies from the
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This Court has
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We review criminal
sentences for “reasonableness” under a deferential abuse of discretion standard. United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 258-265 (2005); United States v. Cooper,
437 F.3d 324,
329-332 (3d Cir. 2006); United States v. Jackson,
523 F.3d 234, 243 (3d Cir. 2008)
(citing Gall v. United States,
128 S. Ct. 586, 597-598 (2007)). We decline to review a
district court’s discretionary decision to depart or not from the federal Guidelines.
Cooper, 437 F.3d at 332-333. Objections not raised at the sentencing hearing are
reviewed for plain error. United States v. Dragon,
471 F.3d 501, 505 (3d Cir. 2006).
2
sentence calculated under the Guidelines.” United States v. Gunter, 462 F.3d 237, 247 (3d
Cir. 2006).
Jimenez concentrates his argument on three aspects of his sentencing. First, we
reject his contention that the District Court did not make clear the reasons for denying
Jimenez’s request for a downward departure in light of his deportability status. Jimenez
argues that he could not understand whether the District Court’s denial of a departure
based on the ground that he is a deportable alien was a discretionary decision or whether
it was based on the District Court’s view that his deportability status was not a proper
ground for departure from the Guidelines. However, the record shows that the decision
denying the request was discretionary. In response to a query by Jimenez’s counsel at
sentencing, the District Court clarified twice that it was choosing not to grant the motion
to depart, as opposed to categorically lacking the power to depart for such a reason, and it
clearly reiterated this point again after an aborted aside that Jimenez contends shows
confusion about the issue. App. at 10-11. The District Court also stated that it took
Jimenez’s deportability status into account under § 3553(a) when imposing a sentence of
130 months, which constituted a substantial variance from the Guidelines range of 168 to
210 months. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the discretionary decision not
to depart. Cooper, 437 F.3d at 332-333.
Jimenez next contends that the District Court failed to properly consider the
“quantity-time factor” of his drug distribution activity as a nonfrivolous basis for
departure. This argument also fails, for two reasons. First, Jimenez failed to raise this
3
issue properly before the District Court. His contention that the District Court failed to
consider the drug quantity and the length of time over which the drugs were distributed
first appeared in an untimely presentencing memorandum (“PSM”) presented to the Court
only a few hours before the sentencing hearing. The District Court did not make a record
that it had ever seen the late-filed PSM and did not make a formal ruling on this issue.
Moreover, the record shows no mention of this document, or any preservation of this
issue, except for one passing reference made by defense counsel during the sentencing
hearing to a “presentence memo,” and this only after the Court indicated that it was
imposing a 130-month sentence.
Second, on the merits we find no plain error in the District Court’s failure to
consider a quantity-time basis for departure. Jimenez cites United States v. Lara, 47 F.3d
60 (2d Cir. 1995) for support, but he gets no help there. Unlike the defendant in Lara, a
“minor player” dealer of small amounts of drugs over a substantial period of time,
Jimenez is a kilogram-level dealer who consistently dealt in amounts of
methamphetamine sufficient to trigger the ten-year mandatory minimum under 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). These facts are vivid and not controverted. Further, the Lara court
found that the quantity-time issue, at the time, was a mitigating factor that had not been
adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission. The Commission subsequently
addressed this issue and promulgated an amendment in 2001, U.S.S.G. App. C,
Amendment No. 640 (2002). Its present form is U.S.S.G. § 2D.1(a)(3), and the Guideline
is now structured to permit minor players in a distribution scheme to receive a two, three,
4
or four-level decrease depending on the amount of drugs involved in the offense,
effectively superceding the justification for Lara-type quantity-time bases for departure.
The situation here took place at least by 2005, with sentencing in April 2008. Thus, the
Guidelines amendment of 2001 controls. We accordingly conclude that the District Court
did not err.
Jimenez’s third and final contention is that the District Court failed to give
“meaningful consideration” under Cooper and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to his argument that
the Guidelines range based upon drug quantity lacked an empirical basis, and therefore
the District Court could categorically depart from the Guidelines range for “policy
reasons.” This argument was first set forth in the untimely PSM described above. Jimenez
offered no support in the PSM for the argument that the methamphetamine guidelines
lacked empirical support. After the court announced that it intended to impose a 130-
month sentence, Jimenez objected that the court failed to properly rule on his request for a
variance from the Guidelines for an alleged lack of empirical support. The court listened
to and noted the argument, but declined to modify the already-announced sentence. In
any event, the District Court had imposed a sentence that already varied downward from
the bottom of the Guidelines by more than three years, although above the mandatory
minimum, and Jimenez presented no factual or legal argument to disturb the sentence he
did receive. In doing so, the court did not abuse its discretion and did impose a reasonable
sentence.
*****
5
We have considered all the contentions of the parties and conclude that no further
discussion is necessary.
The judgment of the District Court dated April 3, 2008, will be affirmed.
6
