1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 22-20389-CR-ALTMAN

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

JULIAN JIMENEZ,

 Defendant.

_______________________/

OBJECTIONS TO THE DRAFT PRESENTENCE 

INVESTIGATION REPORT AND REQUEST FOR DOWNWARD VARIANCE

Julian Jimenez, through undersigned counsel, respectfully files the following 

objections to the draft Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) (DE 245), and, per the 

Court’s Order Setting Date, Time, and Procedures for the Sentencing Hearing (DE 

208) moves for a downward variance from the advisory sentencing guidelines.

I. PSI Objections and Corrections

A. Factual Corrections and Amendments

Paragraph 47 of the draft PSI states that Mr. Jimenez was placed in a special 

education program during the seventh grade. Paragraph 59 states that Mr. Jimenez 

experienced difficulties during middle school. 

Mr. Jimenez, in fact, experienced difficulties throughout his school years, 

beginning in elementary school. Around third and fourth grades, he was experiencing 

major difficulties in keeping up with his class; during those years, he stayed in the 

hallway during the entire school day. He was subsequently evaluated and diagnosed 

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2023 Page 1 of 13
2

with an unspecified learning disability. After his diagnosis, around the fourth grade, 

he was placed in a special education school. He stayed at the special education school 

until middle school, at which time he returned to a regular school. Though he 

returned to a mainstream school, he continued to attend special education classes

until he left school in the 10th grade. 

Paragraph 60 of the draft PSI states that Mr. Jimenez has been unemployed 

since his arrest on August 10, 2022. Mr. Jimenez sought out work at the Federal 

Detention Center; since approximately January of this year, he has worked as a unit 

orderly at FDC. In that position, he sweeps and mops his residential unit and cleans 

up after mealtimes. He earns $9 per month.

B. PSI ¶ 30: Permanent or Life-Threatening Bodily Injury, USSG § 

2A2.1(b)(1)

In the draft PSI, probation has recommended a four-level enhancement 

pursuant to USSG § 2A2.1(b)(1)(A), which applies “[i]f...the victim sustained 

permanent or life-threatening bodily injury.” (PSI ¶ 30). Mr. Jimenez objects to the 

application of the four-level enhancement, as well as the characterization in 

paragraph 13 of the PSI that states that the victim sustained permanent 

disfigurement as a result of the shooting and resulting surgeries.

Mr. Jimenez respectfully requests this Court honor the agreement of the 

parties with respect to the applicable enhancement for the victim’s injury. Namely, 

in the plea agreement, the parties agreed to jointly recommend that the base offense 

level of 33 be increased by 2 levels, as a result of the victim in this case sustaining 

serious bodily injury—rather than the 4-level enhancement for permanent bodily 

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2023 Page 2 of 13
3

injury—pursuant to USSG § 2A2.1(b)(1)(B). (DE 206 ¶8(b)). The Court, of course, is 

not bound by the agreement of the parties. Mr. Jimenez respectfully requests, 

however, that the Court accept this recommendation, which was a critical part of the 

negotiated resolution of this case. 

To be sure, the victim in this case sustained serious bodily injury, as a result 

of his shooting on August 27, 2019. Serious bodily injury, pursuant to USSG § 1B1.1, 

Application Note 1(M), which is the definition referenced in the Application Note to § 

2A2.1, “means injury involving extreme physical pain or the protracted impairment 

of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or requiring medical intervention, such 

as surgery, hospitalization, or physical rehabilitation.” USSG § 1B1.1 cmt. n.1(M).

The victim was shot twice, and surely experienced extreme physical pain as a result. 

Records provided in discovery indicate that he was hospitalized and underwent 

surgery several months after the shooting to remove bullet fragments. Photographs 

provided in discovery support that the victim sustained scarring to his upper back 

and side as a result of the shooting and surgeries, but do not show obvious permanent 

disfigurement. Mr. Jimenez, thus, requests the Court apply the two-level 

enhancement for serious bodily injury, as set forth in USSG § 1B1.1(b)(1)(B), and as 

agreed by the parties.

C. Offer or Receipt of Anything of Pecuniary Value USSG § 2A2.1(b)(2)

The draft disclosure of the PSI does not include an enhancement pursuant to 

USSG § 2A2.1(b)(2). Following the disclosure of the draft PSI, however, in emails sent 

to the parties on October 4 and 5, 2023, U.S. Probation Officer Michael Soto wrote 

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2023 Page 3 of 13
4

that he intends to include a four-level enhancement, pursuant to USSG § 2A2.1(b)(2), 

which applies “[i]f the offense involved the offer or receipt of anything of pecuniary 

value for undertaking the murder....” USSG § 2A2.1(b)(2). The Probation Officer has 

not yet amended the PSI to reflect his stated intent.

Mr. Jimenez objects to the application of this enhancement. Mr. Jimenez 

requests that the Court accept the joint recommendation of the parties to not apply 

this specific offense characteristic, as set forth in the plea agreement. The parties 

agreed to jointly recommend that the applicable base offense level under USSG § 

2A2.1 is level 33; the only specific offense characteristic that applies is for serious 

bodily injury, which increases the offense level by 2; thereby resulting in an adjusted 

offense level of 35; and a total offense level of 33, after accounting for a 2-level 

decrease for acceptance of responsibility. (DE 206 ¶ 8). While the parties’ agreement 

does not bind the Court, Mr. Jimenez asks the Court to adopt the parties’ joint 

recommendation.

II. Request for Downward Variance

Mr. Jimenez is requesting that the Court impose a sentence below the advisory 

guideline range in this case. To be sure, the offense in this case was a very serious 

one. Mr. Jimenez is in no way minimizing the gravity of the offense or making excuses 

for his actions. Indeed, he pled guilty to these offenses, has accepted responsibility,

and understands that the consequences will be commensurately serious. A full 

consideration of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) however, supports the 

imposition of a sentence below the guideline range in this case. At sentencing, Mr. 

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2023 Page 4 of 13
5

Jimenez, through counsel, will provide further information in support of a sentence 

below the advisory guidelines range. Below are highlighted some key factors for the 

Court’s consideration.

A. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

1. Mr. Jimenez’s Youth

At the time of sentencing, Mr. Jimenez will be 27 years old. At the time of the 

offense, however, he was just 23 years old. Mr. Jimenez’s youth at the time of the 

offense does not excuse his conduct. But it is a critical consideration for the Court 

when determining a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to 

reflect the goals of sentencing. 

Neuroimaging studies have shown that brain development—particularly 

frontal lobe development—continues well into an individual’s 20s, likely not reaching 

full maturity until about age 25.1 The frontal lobe houses areas of the brain 

responsible for reasoning, decision-making, and impulse control. The brain of an 

individual in his early 20s has simply not completed its development in these crucial 

areas. This helps explain why many teenagers and young adults tend to make poor 

decisions, lack impulse control, and engage in risk-taking behaviors.2

Mr. Jimenez’s brain—particularly the areas that control reasoning and 

decision-making—had not reached full maturity at the time of the offense conduct. 

 

1 Mariam Arain et al., Maturation of the Adolescent Brain, 9 NEUROPSYCHIATRIC 

DISEASE & TREATMENT 449, 453 (2013), available at 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621648/pdf/ndt-9-449.pdf. 2 Id. at 453-56.

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2023 Page 5 of 13
6

Today, more than four years later, his brain likely has completed its development in 

these critical areas, allowing him to better self-regulate and make reasoned decisions 

with a full understanding of their consequences. And no matter the sentence the 

Court imposes as to Counts 1 and 2, Mr. Jimenez will be well into mid-life at the time 

of his release, as a result of the consecutive 10-year mandatory minimum sentence 

that will be imposed as to Count 3. A sentence below the guideline range as to Counts 

1 and 2, together with the mandatory 10-year sentence as to Count 3, will accordingly 

take account of Mr. Jimenez’s youth at the time of the offense while nonetheless 

reflecting the seriousness of the offense and the need to protect the public. 

2. Mr. Jimenez’s Relationship with Mr. Serrano

Another contributing factor to Mr. Jimenez’s involvement in this offense was 

his relationship with co-defendant Jaime Serrano. Mr. Jimenez was raised in the 

Bronx, primarily by his mother, after his parents separated when he was around four

years old. When Mr. Jimenez’s father moved out, he was largely absent from his son’s 

life. The senior Mr. Jimenez works as a sound engineer for a popular musical artist; 

by his own account, he prioritized his career over his son. He traveled frequently for 

work. While he provided financial support to his son, he was not involved in Julian’s

day-to-day upbringing.

Julian was deeply affected by his father’s absence from his life. He has always 

sought the approval of his father and other male family members. Throughout his 

young life, he has turned to his extended family, looking for replacement father 

figures. He was close with two of his paternal uncles, who lived nearby in the Bronx

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2023 Page 6 of 13
7

when he was young. Sadly, these two uncles passed away when Julian was still an 

adolescent. 

Mr. Jimenez next became close with his cousin Esther’s husband, Aaron 

Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez provided guidance to Mr. Jimenez; he, too, had a rough 

start in life in the Bronx, getting into some trouble as a young man. Mr. Rodriguez 

turned his life around, however, after his son, Aaron, Jr., was born. He secured a good 

job as a city sanitation worker and counseled Mr. Jimenez to do the same. Mr. 

Rodriguez and Mr. Jimenez had a close familial bond even after Mr. Rodriguez and 

his wife separated. Tragically, Mr. Rodriguez was murdered in 2017. Mr. Jimenez felt 

this loss deeply. Once again, he had lost both his close friend and the person who had 

served as his mentor. 

It was around this time that Mr. Jimenez became closer with Jaime Serrano. 

Mr. Jimenez had known Mr. Serrano his entire life, because their two families 

attended the same church and were deeply connected in their community in the 

Bronx. Serrano, however, is much older than Mr. Jimenez; at the time of sentencing, 

he will be nearly 47 years old. Serrano is much closer in age to Mr. Jimenez’s father, 

Mikey, than he is to Julian. Indeed, Mikey Jimenez told law enforcement that he and 

Serrano had grown up together in the church. Also, like the senior Mr. Jimenez, 

Serrano was involved in the music business. For these reasons, Mikey Jimenez 

encouraged the relationship between Serrano and his son. He mistakenly thought 

Serrano could be a good influence on Julian and told law enforcement that he knew 

Julian looked up to Serrano.

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2023 Page 7 of 13
8

Mr. Serrano, too, was aware of all these dynamics. He took advantage of the 

influence he had over Mr. Jimenez when he enlisted Julian’s participation in this 

offense. The government recognized as much in its closing argument at Mr. Serrano’s 

trial:

The defendant [Serrano] and Jimenez are generational family 

friends. The defendant in his 40s, Jimenez in his 20s. You heard 

Jimenez’s father say, “I know the defendant as “Disco,” as “Jay,” as all 

of those other names, “but I also know him as Jaimito.” That’s how close 

their families are.

You know that Jimenez looks up to this defendant.... And that 

matters because that’s why the defendant had him holding the gun. 

That’s why the defendant didn’t do this crime himself. He had his 

nephew do it. He had his nephew do the shooting thinking that he would 

get away.

(Transcript of Government’s Closing Arguments, p. 13, attached hereto as Exhibit A). 

Again, the relationship between the two does not excuse Mr. Jimenez’s conduct. It is 

critical, however, in understanding how Serrano was able to convince Mr. Jimenez, a 

young man with no prior criminal history, to participate in this serious offense. 

3. Mr. Jimenez’s Cognitive and Intellectual Deficits

In determining an appropriate sentence, the Court should also consider Mr. 

Jimenez’s intellectual deficits as a contributing factor to his involvement in this 

offense. Mr. Jimenez struggled in school from a very young age. While in elementary 

school, he was diagnosed with an unspecified learning disability. As noted above, 

after he was diagnosed, he attended special education classes for the rest of his school 

years—first in a special education school, and later in special education classes within 

a regular school. 

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2023 Page 8 of 13
9

Mr. Jimenez’s deficits left him more susceptible to the manipulation and 

influence of Serrano. The government acknowledged as much at Mr. Serrano’s trial. 

Indeed, it was a focus of the government’s closing argument:

[Mr. Serrano] was smart enough to have Julian Jimenez, his nephew, 

his generational family friend, who’s been in special ed. classes his 

entire life, that is what’s in evidence, he was smart enough to have him 

be the sucker, to have him hold the gun, to have him do the shooting, in 

hopes that he would get away.”

(Ex. A, Transcript of Government’s Closing Arguments, p. 9).

As detailed in paragraph 16 of the PSI, Serrano’s manipulation of Mr. Jimenez 

did not end with his enlistment of Mr. Jimenez in the offense conduct. After they were 

arrested, Mr. Serrano convinced Mr. Jimenez to sign a statement attempting to 

exonerate Mr. Serrano by falsely claiming Mr. Jimenez acted alone. (PSI ¶ 16). Mr. 

Jimenez’s agreement to do so demonstrates his naiveté, lack of sophistication, and 

susceptibility to Mr. Serrano’s manipulation.

Mr. Jimenez’s background and personal characteristics do not excuse his 

conduct. They are critical, however, in understanding how a young man like Mr. 

Jimenez, with no prior convictions, is before this Court for sentencing in a case as 

serious as this one. And, as set forth above, his background supports a sentence below 

the advisory guidelines. 

B. The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities

The Court must also consider the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing 

disparities when determining an appropriate sentence. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Mr. 

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2023 Page 9 of 13
10

Jimenez urges the Court to consider the following measures regarding potential 

sentencing disparities.

The parties have agreed to jointly recommend a total offense level of 33. (DE 

206 ¶ 8). Mr. Jimenez is in criminal history category I, with zero criminal history 

points. (PSI ¶ 39). The advisory guideline range as to Counts 1 and 2, per the parties’

agreement, is 135-168 months. The guideline sentence as to Count 3 is the mandatory 

minimum: 120 months. (PSI ¶ 28). The total advisory guideline range would therefore 

be 255-288 months. 

Undersigned counsel used the Judiciary Sentencing Information tool (JSIN) to 

determine the length of imprisonment imposed on defendants convicted of similar 

offenses within the last several years. The JSIN platform is an online sentencing data 

tool developed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. It “provides cumulative data, 

based on five years of sentencing data for offenders sentenced under the same 

primary guideline, and with the same Final Offense Level and Criminal History 

Category selected.”3

Using the JSIN tool revealed that, during the last five years, three defendants 

were sentenced who were similarly situated to Mr. Jimenez. For these three 

defendants, like Mr. Jimenez, the primary guideline was USSG § 2A2.1 (Assault with 

Intent to Commit Murder; Attempted Murder), and each was convicted of at least one 

count of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), with a final offense level (for the non-§ 924(c) count) of 33 

 

3 United States Sentencing Commission, Judiciary Sentencing Information, 

available at https://www.ussc.gov/guidelines/judiciary-sentencing-information.

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2023 Page 10 of 13
11

and a criminal history category of I. The average length of imprisonment for these 

similarly situated defendants was 200 months, with a median length of imprisonment 

of 180 months. Screenshots of these results are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Both 

the average and median sentences imposed on these similarly situated defendants 

are significantly lower than the low end of the advisory guideline range for Mr. 

Jimenez, as agreed upon by the parties, after including the 120-month mandatory 

penalty for Count 3. 

For the purpose of comparison, undersigned counsel also used the JSIN tool to 

determine the average and median length of imprisonment imposed on defendants 

convicted of first-degree murder, who also received a 2-level downward adjustment 

for acceptance of responsibility and were in criminal history category I. The 

applicable guideline for first-degree murder is at USSG § 2A1.1; that guideline

provides a base offense level of 43, with no adjustments for specific offense 

characteristics. During the five-year period from 2018-2022, 16 defendants were 

sentenced whose primary guideline was § 2A1.1, with a final offense level of 41 

(reflecting a 2-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility) and a criminal 

history category of I. For these defendants, the average length of imprisonment was 

291 months, and the median length of imprisonment was 330 months. Screenshots of 

these results are attached hereto as Exhibit C.

To avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, Mr. Jimenez requests this Court 

impose a sentence below the guideline range. The advisory guidelines here provide a 

range that—at the high end—is almost equivalent to the average term of 

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2023 Page 11 of 13
12

imprisonment imposed on federal defendants who committed first-degree murder. 

Even the low end of the advisory guideline range is significantly higher than either 

the average or median term of imprisonment imposed on federal defendants who 

committed attempted murder and were similarly situated to Mr. Jimenez in terms of 

offense level and criminal history category. The average length of imprisonment 

imposed on such defendants was 200 months—more than 4 1⁄2 years less than the low 

end of the guideline range that applies here.

III. Conclusion

The Court is well versed in the circumstances of this case, having presided over 

the trial of co-defendant Serrano. To date, however, the Court has naturally had less 

information regarding Mr. Jimenez’s background and characteristics. Mr. Jimenez is 

a young man with no criminal history. His youth and background left him 

particularly vulnerable to the manipulation of a close family friend. 

The parties were able to reach a negotiated resolution of this case. Mr. Jimenez 

has pled guilty and accepted responsibility for his grievous errors. He now faces a 

mandatory 10-year penalty as to Count 3, which must run consecutive to the sentence 

the Court imposes as to Counts 1 and 2, resulting in a very lengthy total term of 

imprisonment. 

A sentence within the advisory guideline range in this case is greater than 

necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing. Mr. Jimenez’s background weighs 

strongly in favor of a sentence below the guideline range, as does the need to avoid 

unwarranted sentencing disparities. To be sure, the offense was a very serious one, 

and the sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the 

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2023 Page 12 of 13
13

law, and provide just punishment. Because of the consecutive 10-year mandatory 

penalty in this case, a sentence below the advisory guideline range will be sufficient 

to achieve all these aims.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above and as will be further detailed 

at the time of sentencing, Mr. Jimenez respectfully requests that the Court sustain 

his objections to the draft PSI and impose a sentence below the advisory guidelines.

Respectfully Submitted,

MICHAEL CARUSO

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER

By: /s/ Abigail Becker

Assistant Federal Public Defender

Florida Bar No. 72284

150 W. Flagler Street, Suite 1700

Miami, Florida 33130

Tel: 305-530-7000

Abigail_Becker@fd.org

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY certify that on October 18, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on all counsel of record via transmission of Notices 

of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for 

those counsel or parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of 

Electronic Filing.

/s/ Abigail Becker_____

Case 1:22-cr-20389-RKA Document 247 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/18/2023 Page 13 of 13