Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02517/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02517-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Raul Alexander Jimenez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-2517

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Raul Alexander Jimenez,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the 

District of Minnesota.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

 Submitted: September 28, 2007 

 Filed: November 2, 2007 

________________

Before COLLOTON, ARNOLD and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM. 

Raul Alexander Jimenez pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with

intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 846.

He now appeals his sentence. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the sentence

of the district court.1

 

Appellate Case: 06-2517 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2007 Entry ID: 3368756
-2-

On June 28, 2004, Minneapolis police officers executed search warrants at two

residences, recovering 1892.45 grams of cocaine, $41,000 in U.S. currency, a digital

scale and drug packaging materials. That same day, another individual who was part

of the drug distribution conspiracy sold 1016.4 grams of cocaine to an undercover

officer. A cooperating witness identified Jimenez as directly involved in the

transportation and sale of the drugs, and police found Jiminez’s fingerprints on the

packaging of the cocaine sold to the undercover officer. Based on the evidence found

in the residences and the cooperating witness, the police arrested Jimenez. 

After a federal grand jury returned an indictment against him, Jimenez entered

into a plea agreement with the Government. In the plea agreement, Jimenez agreed

to plead guilty and the Government agreed to recommend a downward adjustment for

his acceptance of responsibility and not to object to Jimenez’s request for a minor role

reduction in his advisory sentencing guideline range. At sentencing, the district court

held Jimenez accountable for the 1892.45 grams of cocaine found in the residences

and the 1016.4 grams sold to the undercover officer and determined a base offense

level of 28. The court then granted a two-level reduction under the safety valve

provision in United States Sentencing Guidelines § 5C1.2, a two-level reduction under

§ 3B1.2(b) for Jimenez’s role as a minor participant in the offense, and a three-level

reduction under § 3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense

level of 21. With a criminal history category of I, Jimenez’s advisory sentencing

guidelines range was 37 to 46 months’ imprisonment, to which he did not object. The

Government recommended a sentence within the guidelines range, and the district

court sentenced Jimenez to 37 months’ imprisonment. 

On appeal, Jimenez challenges his sentence as unreasonable. We review a

defendant’s reasonableness challenge with a standard akin to abuse of discretion.

United States v. Beck, 496 F.3d 876, 879 (8th Cir. 2007). A district court abuses its

discretion in sentencing if it 

Appellate Case: 06-2517 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2007 Entry ID: 3368756
-3-

fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received

significant weight, . . . gives significant weight to an improper or

irrelevant factor, or . . . considers only appropriate factors but

nevertheless commits a clear error of judgment by arriving at a

sentence that lies outside the limited range of choice dictated by

the facts of the case.

United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 913

(2005). We presume that a sentence within the properly calculated guidelines range

is reasonable. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. ---, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007). 

Prior to sentencing, Jimenez filed a motion seeking a downward variance based

on certain alleged mitigating factors. In sentencing Jimenez, the district court

specifically acknowledged the issues Jimenez raised in his motion and considered and

rejected the possibility of granting a variance. The court determined that a sentence

at the bottom of the advisory guidelines range was appropriate. 

On appeal, Jimenez again argues that a co-defendant’s 18-month sentence is

disproportionate to his 37-month sentence. However, the co-defendant received a

lesser sentence based on his substantial assistance under § 5K1.1, while Jimenez did

not provide substantial assistance and therefore did not qualify for a reduced sentence

under § 5K1.1. See United States v. Watson, 480 F.3d 1175, 1178 (8th Cir.), cert.

denied, --- U.S. ---, 2007 WL 2231098 (Oct. 1, 2007) (upholding sentence disparity

between two defendants when, among other considerations, one received a downward

departure under § 5K1.1 and the other did not). Jimenez also argues that his sentence

was unreasonable because he claims that the offense was aberrant behavior, that he

lacked sophistication, that he was only involved for a short time, that he committed

the crime because of his extreme poverty, and that he showed exceptional remorse.

Based on our review of the record, we do not find that the district court committed “a

clear error of judgment by arriving at a sentence that [lay] outside the limited range

Appellate Case: 06-2517 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/02/2007 Entry ID: 3368756
-4-

of choice dictated by the facts of the case.” See Haack, 403 F.3d at 1004. Indeed, we

presume this sentence is reasonable because it is within the properly calculated

advisory guidelines range. See Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2462. Therefore, we find the

district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Jimenez to 37 months’

imprisonment.

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. 

_____________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2517 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/02/2007 Entry ID: 3368756