N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. FR EDDY WAYNE JIM ENEZ, AKA Fre ddy W ay ne Jim ine z , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-30295

D.C . No. 4:13-c r-00006-DLC -1 M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dana L. C hriste nse n, C h ie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay 6, 2016 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : TASHIM A, TALLM AN, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt–Appe lla

nt Fre ddy W ayne Jim e ne z a

ppe a ls his te n c rim i na l c onvic tions, whic h inc l ude six c ounts of a ssa ult re sulting in se

rious bodily

injury and four c ounts of a ssa

ult with a da n ge rous we a

pon, a nd his se nte nc e of 210 

# FIL ED MAY12 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.m onths im

p risonm e nt. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 1. Suffic ie nt e vide nc e supports Jime ne z ’ s c onvic t ions. Se eMusac c hio v . Unite d State s , 136 S. C t. 709, 715 (2016) (holding tha t e vide nc e is suffic ie nt if

“ a fte r vie wing thee vide nc e in the light most fa vora ble to the prose c ution, a ny rationa l trie r of fa c t c o uld ha v e found thee sse ntia l e le m e nts of thec rim e be y ond a re a s ona ble doubt” (quoting J

ac k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). The jury he ard and re

je c te d Jim e ne z ’ s a

rgum e nts se e king to c ontra d ic t or disc re dit the vic t im s who te stifie d at tria l . W e c annot “ se c o nd–gue s s the jury ’ s c re dibility a sse ssm e nts.” Unite d

State s v . Ramos-Atondo , 732 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th C ir. 2013) (c ita

tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). And thete stim ony of the se vic t im s wa s suffic ie nt to support the te n c onvic tions. Se e

, e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Tam , 240 F.3d 797, 806 (9th C ir. 2001) (noting tha t te stim ony

of a singlewitne ss m ay be suffic ie nt to support a c onvic tion). 2. The distric t c ourt ne ithe r double c ounte d nor othe rwise e rre d whe n a pply ing thevulne ra

ble -vic t im

a djustm e nt unde r § 3A1.1(b)(1) of theUnite d Stat e s Se nte nc i ng Guide line s (“ U.S.S.G.” ). The distric t c o urt ide ntifie d the spe c ific fa c tors tha

t m a de the c h ildre n pa

rtic ula rly vulne ra ble : the ir y oung a ge and de pe nde nc e on the ir fathe r, an d Jim e ne z ’ s c ontrol ove r the m . Se eUnite d State s v . 2N

ie lse n , 694 F.3d 1032, 1037 (9th C ir. 2012); se ealso U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1, a pp. n. 2. The se fa c tors m a de the c hildre n “ unique ly vulne ra ble a s c om

p are d to thety

pic a l vic t im ” of a ssa

ult. N i e lse n , 694 F.3d a

t 1037; se ealso United State s v . W i lliams , 291 F.3d 1180, 1196 (9th C ir. 2002) ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by Unite d State s v . Gonzale

s , 506 F.3d 940 (9th C ir. 2007) (e n ba nc ) (a ffirm ing vulne ra

ble -vic tim a djustm e nt whe n m inor’ s “ m e nta l c ondition”wa s a dve rse ly a ffe c te d by se xua l a ssa ult by m othe r’ s boy frie nd a

nd m othe r’ s “ se rious proble m with c he m ic a l de pe nde nc y ” ). Jim e ne z ’ s pa re nta l role wa s pa

rtic ula rly c ruc ia l give n the c ondition of the c hildre n’ s m othe r, whom Jim e ne z de sc ribe d a s “ drug a ddle d,” and

“ [im ] pe rfe c t.” Furthe rm ore , a s the ir fathe r, Jim e n e zwould ha ve or should ha

ve re c o gniz e d tha

t his c hildre n we re vulne ra ble vic tim s. Se e U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)(1). 3. Nor did thedistric t c ourt a buse its disc re tion whe n a pply ing a se ve n-le ve l offe nse e nha

nc e m e nt on C ount II for a life -thre ate ning bodily

injury unde r U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2(b)(3)(C ). B a se d on the te stim o ny of J im e ne z ’ s e x-wife , he r doc tor, a nd a soc ia l worke r, the distric t c ourt did not c le arly e rr in finding tha

t the stra ngula tion c ha rge d in C ount II a

nd e ndure d by Jim e ne z ’ s e x-wife wa s life thre ate ning. Se e Unite d

State s v . Morgan, 238 F.3d 1180, 1188 (9th C i r. 2001) (holding tha

t vic t im ’ s injury

c an be life -thre ate ning unde r § 2A2.2 whe n she is

3pla c e d in life -thre ate ning situa t ion); se ealso U.S.S.G. § 1B 1.1 a pp. n.1(J) (de fining “ life -thre ate ning bodily injury ” ). 4. Jim e ne z argue s on a

ppe a l tha t the distric t c o urt e rre d by de p arting from the a pplic a b le guide line range unde r U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 (inade qua c y of c rim ina l history c ate gory ) and § 5K2.3 (e xtre m e psy c h ologic a l injury). 1 B ut “ [t] his argum e nt c onfla

te s guide line se nte nc ing re vie w with post- Book e r se nte nc ing re vie w.” Unite d State

s v . Mix , 457 F.3d 906, 912 (9th C ir. 2006). Rathe r tha n re vie w whe the r the distric t c ourt prope rly a pplie d the se provisions, we re vie w only whe the r the distric t c ourt’ s tota l de viat ion from the a pplic a ble guide line range wa s re a s ona ble . Se eRosale

s-Gonzale

s , 801 F.3d a

t 1180. W e c onc lude tha

t the se nte nc e wa s re a sona

ble and tha

t the distric t c ourt prope rly c onside re d the 18 U.S.C . § 3553(a) fa c tors. C o ntra ry to Jim e ne z ’ s a

rgum e nt, the distric t c o urt ha d not c onside re d Jim e ne z ’ s full c rim ina l history whe n c a lc ulating his c rim i na l history c ate gory and offe nse le ve l. Additiona l c rim i na l c o nduc t wa s not inc lude d in the origina l guide line c a lc ulation a nd wa s suffic i e ntly se rious to wa rrant a se nte nc e a

bove the a

p plic a ble guide line range . Se eUnite d State s v . C o nne l ly , 156 1 The distric t c ourt a lso c ite d U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4 a s a re a son to dep art upwa

rd. B e c a use Jim e ne z d o e s not c ha lle nge the a pplic ation of U.S.S.G. § 3D1.4 on a ppe a l, we do not a ddre ss tha

t guide line provision. Se ePadge tt v . W right, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). Inste a d, we look only to whe the r the se nte nc e im

pose d wa s re a s ona

ble . Se eUnite d State

s v . Rosale

s-Gonzale

s , 801 F.3d 1177, 1180 (9th C ir. 2015). 4F.3d 978, 984 (9th C ir. 1998); s e ealso U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a)(2)(A). The

psy c hologic a l injurie s suffe re d by Jim e n e z ’ s thre e c hildre n sim ila rly justifie d a se nte nc e a

bove the guide line range . The c hildre n te stifie d a bout the ir fat

he r’ s a buse , an d the ir gra

ndm othe r and the ra

p i st te stifie d a

b out thec hildre n ’ s re sulting nightm are s, a

nxie t y , he a d a c he s, fla shba c ks, stom a c h proble m s, sle e p diffic ultie s, Post-Tra um atic -Stre ss Disorde r, and m e nta l-he a lth tre atm e nt. The tria l te stim ony de m onstra

te d tha t Jim e ne z ’ s c rim ina l c o nduc t spe c i fic a lly ha d a n e xtre m e psy c hologic a l im

pa c t on the m . Additionally , the distric t c ourt prope rly c onside re d the c hildre n’ s psy c hologic a l injurie s a nd the ir sta

tus a s vulne ra

ble vic tim s a s se pa rate re a sons to va

ry from the guide line range . Se e18 U.S.C . § 3553 (a)(1), (2)(A). To furthe r justify the se nte nc e unde r § 3553(a ), the distric t c ourt e m pha siz e d the da

nge rousne ss a

nd se riousne ss of Jim e n e z ’ s c rim ina l c o nduc t a nd the i m p orta nc e of prote c t i ng the public an d Jim e ne z ’ s c h ildre n, the y o unge st of whic h wa s 2 y e ars old. 5. Jim e ne z ’ s 210-m onth se nte nc e did not viola te Appre ndi v . N

e w J e rse y , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). None of the se nte nc e s im pose d e xc e e de d the sta

tutory m a xim um ; thus, running se

nte nc e s c onse c utive ly

in this c a se , doe s not im

plic ate Appre ndi . Se e Unite d

State s v . Buc k land, 289 F.3d 558, 572 (9th C ir. 2002) (e n ba nc ). 5AFFIRM E D.

6