Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R . 47 .5, th e court has determined that this o pinion should * not be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forthin 5 T H C IR . R . 47 .5.4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 11175
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. J OH N PAUL J I M ENEZ D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SDC N o . 5 : 0 6
- CR- 0 2 7
- ALL
B ef ore G A R W O O D , W IE N E R , an d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * D efen da n t
- A pp el l an tJoh n P au lJi m en ez app eal s t h e 36-m on t h sentence he r e c e i ve d f

o l l o w i ng r e vo c at i o n o f hi s s upe r vi s e d r e l e as e . H e c o nt e nds t hatt he d is tr ic t c o u r t m is c a lc u la te d h is s e n te n c e b e c a u s e it e r r o n e o u s lyd e te r m in e d h is g u id e lin e ra n g e to b e 1 2 to 1 8 m o n th s ra th e rth a n 6 to 1 2 m o n th s . I . Fact s and P r oce edi ngs J i m en ez p l ea d ed g u i l ty to p oss ess i on o f 17 8 k i l og ra m s of m a rij u a n a w i th i nt e ntt o di s t r ibut e i n 2 00 2 andw as s e nt e nc e d t o 5 0 m o nt hs i n pr i s o n a nd f o ur United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 8, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-11175 Document: 00511022747 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/08/2010Jimen ez had pr evious ly violate d the te rm s of his rel eas e in 2006 by test ing pos itive 1 to c ocaine; rath er thanrevoking his relea se, th e di strict court re quired him to reside in a co mmunityc orre ctio nf acilityf or1 8 0d ay s an d refe rr edhimto adru gtre atm ent progra m. I nDe ce mb er2 0 0 6 , h e wa s rel ea se d fromth e progra m. years of sup ervi sed rel ease. W h i l e un der sup ervi sed rel ease, Ji m en ez adm i t t ed t o hi s pr o ba t i o n o f

f i c e rt hathe ha d us e d c o c ai ne i n M ar c h 2007 , a nd t he go ve rn m en t m ov ed to rev ok e his relea se an d secu red a w a rra n t f or h i s ar rest. 1 J im e n e z a b s c o n d e d fr o m s u p e r v is io n a n d w a s a r r e s te d 1 8 m o n th s la te r , in O c t obe r2008. I n t he V i ol at i on R epo r t , t he pr obati on o ff i c ers t at ed t hat Ji m enez had com m i t t ed a G rade C vi ol ati on an d cal cul ated his cr i m i n alhi st ory cat egory ( “ CH C” ) a s I V. The Rep o r ti nc o r r e c t l y no t e d, ho w e ve r , t hatt he i m pr i s o nm e nt ran ge f or G rade C , C H C I Vun der U n i t ed S t ates S en t en ci n g G u i del i n es ( “ U SS G ” ) § 7B 1. 4( a) i s 12 t o 1 8 m ont hs r at her t han t he c or r ec tr ange o f 6 t o 1 2 m o nt hs
. Af

t e rde t e r m i ni ng t hatJ i m e ne z ha d c o m m i t t e d a G r ad e C vi o l at i o n a nd th a t h e h a d a C H C o f IV , th e d is tr ic t co u r t se n te n c e d J im e n e z to 3 6 m o n th s in pri son, j u st i f

yi n g t h e sentence by n ot i n g t h at Ji m en e z ha d ab sconded f rom super vi si on f

or18 m ont hs and t hat t he s ent enc e w oul d af f ord J i m en ez an o p p o r tu n ity to p a r tic ip a te in a d r u gtr e a tm e n t p r o g r a m . J im e n e z tim e ly ap pe al e d. II . A n a ly s is J im e n e z co n te n d s th a t t h e 3 6 m o n th s e n te n c e is p la in lyu n r e a s o n a b le becau se t h e di st ri ctcourtw as requ i red t o consi der t h e corr ectgu i del i n e rang e. H e a r g u e s th a t, e v e n th o u g h th e co u r t d e p a r te d u p w a r d , th e r e is a re a s o n a b le pro babi l i t y t hat he w oul d have r ec eived a l es se rs ent enc e i f t he c our thad consi dered the corr ectse n te n cin gra n g e . T h e g o v e rn m e n t re sp o n d s that Ji m en ez c o ul d ha ve b e en foun d t o ha ve c o m m i t t e d a G r ad e B vi o l at i o n (t he g ui de l i ne ran ge f or w h i ch i s 12 t o 18 m on t h s) , bu tt h at, i n an y eve n t, J im e n ez cann ot Case: 08-11175 Document: 00511022747 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/08/2010United States v. Whitelaw , 5 8 0F .3 d 2 5 6 , 2 5 9( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 9). 2 United States v. Olano , 5 0 7U .S
. 7 2 5 , 7 3 2 -3 7( 1 9 9 3). 3 United States v. Garza-Lopez , 4 1 0F .3 d 2 6 8 , 2 7 5( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 5). 4 See 1 8U .S .C
. § 3 5 8 3 (e)( 3). 5 United States v. Mathena , 2 3F .3 d 8 7 , 9 0 -9 3( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 4). 62 1 U .S .C
. § 8 4 1 (b)( 1 )(B)(vii). 71 8U .S .C
. § 3 5 5 9 (a)(2 ). 8 prove that hi s s en t en ce i s un reasona bl e. A s Ji m en ez di d n otbri n g t o t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s at t en t i on t h e asser t ed error i n t h e c a lc u la tio n o f h is te r m o f im p r is o n m e n t, w e re v ie w h is cla im fo rp la in er r or . To e st abl i sh pl ai n er r or , t he def endan t m u st sh ow ( 1) an er r or( 2) t hat 2 i s pl ai n, ( 3) t hat af

fe c t s hi s s ubs t ant i al r i ght s , and t hat ( 4) s e r i o us l y af fe c t s t he fai r nes s, i nt egr i t y, orpubl i c r eput at i on o f j udi c i alpr oc ee di ngs. To s how t hat an 3 e r r o ra ffe c te d h is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts , th e d e fe n d a n t m u s t s h o w “a re a s o n a b le proba bi l i t y” that bu tforthe errorh e w ou l d h ave received a di f ferent s en t en ce. 4 Ad is tr ic t c o u r t m a yim p o s e a n ys e n te n c e o n r e v o c a tio n o f s u p e r v is io n th a t fa lls w i t hi n t he s t at ut o r y m ax i m um t e r m a l l o w e d f o rt h e revoc at i o n s e nt e nc e , b ut 5
m us tdo s o i n l i ghto f t he fac t o r s e num e r at e d i n 18 U
. S
. C
. § 3 55 3( a) a nd t he p o l i c ys t a t e me n t s o f

C h a p t e r7 o f

t h e US S G. 6 Eve n a s s um i ng t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r o ne ou s l y de t e r m i ne d t he gui de l i n e ran ge f

o rJ i m e ne z ’ s t e r m o f i m pr i s o nm e ntt o b e 1 2 t o 1 8 m o nt hs i nst ead o f

6 t o 12 m ont hs, Ji m enez cannotshow thath i s s ubst ant i alr i ght s have b ee n affe c te d
. J i m en ez ’ s origina lcon victi on f or p oss ess i on w i th i n ten t t o di st r ibut e m ar ij uana c ar r i ed a st at ut or y m axi m um t er m of i m pri so nm entof

40 years. Th i s of

fen se i s t h eref

ore a C l ass B f

el on y, a n d th e m a xi m u m t erm of 7 8 Case: 08-11175 Document: 00511022747 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/08/20101 8U .S .C
. § 3 5 8 3 (e)( 3). 9 See, e.g. , United States v. Gonzalez , 25 3 Fed. App’x38 7, 3 88 (5thC ir. 2 007) 10 (c olle ctin gc a se s)
. i m pr i s o nm e nto n r e vo c at i o n of sup e r vi s e d r e l e as e i s 36 m o nt hs
. By i t s e l f, t he 9 di st r i c tc our t ’ s er r oneo us s el ec t i on of t he i nco r r ec tgui del i ne r ange i s noteno ugh t o d e m o n s tr a te th a t t h e “s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts ” p r o n go f th e p la in e r r o rte s t is sati sf i ed. A l t h ou gh t h e 36 m on t h priso n te rm im posed by the di st ri ctcourt 10 exceeded both t h e 6 to 1 2 m on t h a n d 12 to18 m on t h gu i del i n e rang es, t h e di st ri ct c o u r ts u p p o r t e d it s u p w a r d d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e g u id e li n e s b yn o t in gJ im e n e z ’s abs c ondi ng f

r om j ust i c e f

or18 m ont hs and t he dr ug t r eat m entoppo r t uni t y t hat a 3 6 m o n th te r m w o u ld a ffo r d
. J im e n e z h a s fa ile d to d e m o n s tr a te th a t t h e r e is a “r eason able proba bi l i t y” h e w o u l d h ave received a di f ferent t erm of i m pri sonm en tbu tf

or t h e gu i del i n e cal cul ati on err or. A F F IR M E D
. Case: 08-11175 Document: 00511022747 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/08/2010