Court Opinion

ID: 9809116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:00:58.920489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:24:52.322499
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 31 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-773
                                                D.C. No. 3:20-cr-02748-JAH-1
             Plaintiff - Appellee,              Southern District of California, San
                                                Diego
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ADAM JESUS JIMENEZ,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of California
                    John A. Houston, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Adam Jesus Jimenez appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 9-month sentence, to be followed by 18 months of supervise release,

imposed upon the second revocation of his supervised release. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Jimenez contends that the district court violated his right to due process and

procedurally erred by basing the sentence on the unsupported assumption that he

missed drug tests because he was using illegal drugs. Even assuming the court’s

conclusion was so lacking in reliability as to violate due process, however, it was

not “demonstrably made the basis for the sentence.” United States v.

Vanderwerfhorst, 576 F.3d 929, 935-36 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Rather, the record reflects that the court imposed the nine-month

sentence because Jimenez consistently failed to comply with the conditions of his

supervision, beginning with a violation just two days after his release on the

underlying offense and continuing through the instant violations.

      Jimenez also argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because

it is longer than his sentence for the original offense and a shorter sentence would

have accomplished the goals of sentencing. The court did not abuse its discretion

in imposing the within-Guidelines sentence, which is substantively reasonable

under the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) factors and the totality of the circumstances,

including Jimenez’s poor history on supervised release. See Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

      AFFIRMED.

                                        2                                      23-773