Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40666/USCOURTS-ca5-15-40666-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Julian Abundiz
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-40666

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE JULIAN ABUNDIZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:14-CR-1199

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Julian Abundiz, federal prisoner # 37573-279, appeals his 120-

month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for possession 

with intent to distribute approximately 1,626 kilograms of marijuana. 

Abundiz contends that he should have been eligible for a sentence below the 

mandatory minimum because both of his prior convictions were misdemeanors, 

though he concedes that he validly received two criminal history points based 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 29, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-40666 Document: 00513362396 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2016
No. 15-40666

2

on the prior misdemeanor convictions making him ineligible for the application

of the safety valve provision. He contends that the district court could have 

departed downward based on other factors, such as his minor role in the offense 

and the fact that his limited involvement in the offense precluded him from 

obtaining information to provide substantial assistance to the Government. 

The Government responds with a motion for summary affirmance, arguing 

that Abundiz conceded that there were no nonfrivolous issues arising from his 

guilty plea or sentencing.

A district court has the discretion to depart below a statutory mandatory 

minimum penalty only under the two circumstances set out in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(e) and § 3553(f). See United States v. Phillips, 382 F.3d 489, 498-99 (5th 

Cir. 2004). These circumstances are when the Government files a motion for 

a reduction of sentence because the defendant has provided it with substantial 

assistance or if the defendant meets the criteria rendering him eligible for the 

safety valve provision under § 3553(f). Id. at 499.

The Government did not file a motion for a departure based on Abundiz’s 

substantial assistance. As Abundiz concedes, the district court did not err in 

determining that the sentences for his two prior misdemeanor convictions 

resulted in two criminal history points. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(c); U.S.S.G. 

§ 4A1.2, cmt. (n.2), (n.5). Therefore, the district court was correct in its 

determination that it was not authorized to depart below the statutory 

mandatory minimum sentence See United States v. Krumnow, 476 F.3d 294, 

297-98 (5th Cir. 2007); Phillips, 382 F.3d at 499. 

A summary affirmance is not appropriate in this case; therefore, the 

Government’s motion is DENIED. See United States v. Holy Land Found. for 

Relief and Dev., 445 F.3d 771, 781 (5th Cir. 2006). The Government’s 

 Case: 15-40666 Document: 00513362396 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2016
No. 15-40666

3

alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is also DENIED. 

Abundiz’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-40666 Document: 00513362396 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/29/2016