Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Miranda JIMINEZ, also known as Joel Miranda Jimenez, also known as Joe Jimenez, also known as Joel Miranda Ramirez, also known as Alfredo Salgado, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-28
Citations: 636 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 09-20596
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Miranda JIMINEZ, also known as Joel Miranda Jimenez, also known as Joe Jimenez, also known as Joel Miranda Ramirez, also known as Alfredo Salgado, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 636
Pages: 618–618

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Miranda JIMINEZ, also known as Joel Miranda Jimenez, also known as Joe Jimenez, also known as Joel Miranda Ramirez, also known as Alfredo Salgado, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-20596
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 28, 2010.
James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Kenneth W. McGuire, Esq., McGuire Law Firm, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joel Miranda Jiminez pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been removed following conviction for an aggravated felony. He seeks automatic re-sentencing because the district court erroneously believed that it was constrained by our precedent to deny a cultural assimilation downward departure because of his extensive, violent criminal history.
At sentencing, the district court conducted a thorough review of the sentencing factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the relevant case law. The district court concluded that Jiminez's motion for a downward departure should be denied in light of his history of violent offenses. Contrary to Jiminez's assertion, however, the district court did not state that our prior precedent prevented it from granting the motion. Rather, it treated those cases as persuasive authority and concluded that a downward departure was not warranted in this case. The district court's denial was not "based on the mistaken belief that the court lacked discretion to depart." United States v. Garay, 235 F.3d 230, 232 (5th Cir.2000), Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court's decision that a downward departure was unwarranted. United States v. Thames, 214 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir.2000).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4,