2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

6-27-2005

USA v. Jimenez-Calderon

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 03-3738

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

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 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Jimenez-Calderon" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 964.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/964
The Honorable Jan E. DuBois, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern 1

District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Case No: 03-3738

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ANTONIA JIMENEZ-CALDERON,

a/k/a MIRIAM CORTEZ,

a/k/a MIRIAM GARCIA,

a/k/a BONIFACIO

 Antonia Jimenez-Calderon,

Appellant

 

On appeal form the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

District Judge: The Honorable Faith S. Hochberg

District Court No. 02-00553-3

 

Argued June 16, 2004

Before: ALITO and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and

DUBOIS, District Judge1

(Filed: June 27, 2005)
2

 

OPINION OF THE COURT

 

Chester M. Keller, Esq. (Argued)

First Assistant Federal Public Defender

972 Broad Street

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Counsel for Appellant

Sabrina G. Comizzoli

Assistant U.S. Attorney

George S. Leone

Chief, Appeals Division

U.S. Attorney’s Office

970 Broad Street

Newark, New Jersey 07102

Counsel for Appellee

DUBOIS, District Judge:

Appellant, Antonia Jimenez-Calderon, pled guilty to Counts One and Fourteen of

the Superceding Indictment in this case on January 17, 2003. Count One charged

appellant and four of her co-conspirators with conspiracy (a) to provide and obtain labor

and services of underage Mexican girls by threats of serious harm and physical restraint,

contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 1589, and (b) to recruit, harbor, transport, provide and obtain

underage Mexican girls, knowing that force, fraud and coercion would be used to cause

the girls to engage in commercial sex acts, affecting interstate commerce, contrary to 18

U.S.C. § 1591(a), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Fourteen charged appellant and
3

three of her co-conspirators with commercial sex trafficking by force, fraud and coercion

affecting interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1597(a)(1) and (2). On August

7, 2003, the district court sentenced appellant, inter alia, to imprisonment for a term of

210 months.

Appellant challenges only her sentence in this appeal. Specifically, she raises the

following arguments:

1. The district court erred in enhancing the offense level under U.S.S.G. §

2G1.1(b)(4) (B) for “otherwise unduly influencing a minor to engage in a commercial sex

act” on the ground that such conduct was incorporated into the base offense level

calculation under U.S.S.G. 

§ 2G1.1(b)(1);

2. The district court erred in applying a 2-level vulnerable victim enhancement

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1; and,

3. The district court erred in determining that defendant was an organizer or leader

of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1.

Appellant’s sentence was imposed prior to the Supreme Court decision in United

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). In Booker, the Supreme Court declared that the

United States Sentencing Guidelines are only advisory. Id. at 757. As a result,

appellant’s sentence may have been affected by the district court’s treatment of the
Guidelines as mandatory.

Pursuant to the Court’s Notice dated February 17, 2005, appellant submitted a

letter pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j) on March 4, 2005, in which

she stated she wants to challenge her sentence under Booker, and the government

responded.

This Court concludes that the sentencing issues appellant raises and her challenge

to her sentence under Booker are best determined by the district court in the first instance. 

Therefore, we will vacate the sentence and remand for re-sentencing in accordance with

Booker.