1

10-182-cr U SA v. J i m enez UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

## SU MM AR

Y O RD ER

Ru li ng s b y s um mar

y o rd er d o n otha

ve p rec ed en ti al

ef fe ct. Ci tat io n t o s um mar y o rd ers fi le d o n o r af

ter Ja nu ary 1, 200 7, is pe rmi tte d a nd is go ver ne d b y F ed era l Ru le of Ap pe ll ate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citin g a summary order in a document filed with this cou rt, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summary order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
At a stated term of the United States Court of App eals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Un ited States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street , in the City of New York, on the first day of O ctober, two thousand and ten.
PRESENT:
W I L F R ED F EI NBER G , J OS EP H M. M C L

A U G H L IN , J OSÉ A. C AB RANES ,

Circuit Judges

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x U NI T ED S TATES OF A MERI CA ,

Appellee ,

-v.- No. 10-182- cr F REDDY J I MENEZ , a.k.a. Gaguito, a.k.a. Gago,

Defendant , O DA RI S J I MENEZ , a.k.a. Baron,

Defendant-Ap

pellant.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x FO R D EF END AN T-A

PP EL LA NT: Steven B. Rasile, Law Offices of Mirto & Rasile, West

Haven, CT. FO R APP EL LE E: Geoffrey M. Stone, Assistant Unite d States At torney (D av id B. Fe in , Unit edSt at es At to rn ey , a ndSa nd raS. Gl ov er , on th e b ri ef ) United States A ttorney’s Office for the Di st ric t o f Co nn ec ti cu t, New H av en , C T.2

Appeal from a Dece mber 16, 2009 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of C on ne ct

ic ut (S te fa n R . Un de rh ill , Ju dg

e ).
UP ON DU E C ON SI DE RA TI ON , I T I S H ERE BY ORDE RED , A

DJ UD GED , A

ND DE CREED that the judgment of the District Court be AF FI RM ED

. On November 24, 2008, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Odaris Jimenez (“defendant” or “Jimenez”) in Count One with conspiracy t o possess with intent to distribute, and to di st rib ut e, fiv e k

ilo gra ms or

mo re of c oc ai ne invio la ti onof 2 1 U. S.C . § § 8 41(a) (1 ), (b )( 1) (A ), an d 8 46. On May 21, 2009, Jimenez pleaded guilty to Count O ne of the indictme nt. On Decem ber 11, 2009, the District Court sent enced the defendant principally to 120 months and one day of imprisonment. The judgment was ent ered on Dece mber 15, 2009, but the judgment state d incorrectly tha t the sent ence imposed was 120 months of imprisonment, rathe r than 120 months and one day. A n amended ju dgm en t r ef

le ct in g t he co rre ct

se nt en ce wa s e nt er edonMa rc h 2 3, 2 010

. On Decem ber 16, 2009, Ji menez filed a time ly notice of appeal. We a ssume the part ies’ fa mi lia rit y w ith the re ma

inin g fa ctual a nd pr oc ed ur al hi st ory o f the ca se . Onap pe al , Ji me ne z a ss er ts a s in gle cl ai m. He ar gue s tha t his se nt en ce wa s s ub st an ti ve ly
un re as on ab le be ca us e the st atut ory m an da to ry mi ni mu m s en te nc e e st ab lis he d b y 2 1 U. S.C . § 841 is limited by the pa rsimony clause of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The parsimony clause of § 3553(a) provides tha t th e D is tr ic t C ou rt “sh all im po se a s en te nc e tha t i s s uff ic ie nt , b ut no t gre at er

th anne ce ss ary, to co mp ly with the purposes se t forth in Paragraph 2 of this subsection.” 18 U.S. C. § 3553(a). Accordingly, Jim en ez argue s tha t the Di st ric t C ou rt —whi chre ma rke d a t s en te nc in g tha t “ if the re we re no ma nd at ory minimum, Mr. Jimenez would certa inly receive less tha n ten yea rs” and that the Court “wish[e d] [it] had
mo re di sc re ti on ”—w as re quire d t o i mp os e a se nt en ce be lo w the te n y ea rs ma nd at edby st atut e. The defendant’s argument is without merit. In United States v. Samas , 561 F.3d 1 08 (2d Cir. 2009), cert. den ied , 130 S. Ct. 184 (200 9), we expressly reje cted the precise argument that Jimenez m akes on ap pe al

. Samas

he ld th at “[ t] he wo rd in g of

§ 3 553 (a ) i s n ot in co ns is te nt

wi tha s en te nc in g fl oo r.” Id

. at 111 . T ha t h ol di ng c on tr ol s o ur de ci si onhe re . Jimenez att empts to distinguish his case from Samas on the basis that the defendant

in Samas di d not raise any objec tions before the district court. Under the circum stances, this distinc tion is of no legal consequence . We found no error, plain or otherwise, in Samas , se e i d. at 110 -11 , ju st

as we fin d n on e i n th e i ns ta nt

ca se . CONCLUSION
For the reasons state d above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the D istrict Court.
FOR THE COURT, Ca th er in e O ’H ag anWo lfe , C le rk o f Co ur t