gno.law

United States v. Melissa Jimenez

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 11-50426 · 2012-02-24 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melissa JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant

Area
other
Panel
Ferdinand F. Fernandez (author), Mary M. McKeown, Jay S. Bybee

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50426 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:04-cr-02105-BEN v. MEMORANDUM * MELISSA JIMENEZ, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 21, 2012 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Melissa Jimenez appeals from the 12-month sentence imposed following the revocation of her 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 9th Cir. R. 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 procedurally erred because it failed to explain its reasons for imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. She also contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because the sentence is longer than necessary. Jimenez’s contentions are not supported by the record. The district court did not procedurally err, and Jimenez’s sentence is reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances and the relevant 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

Jimenez last contends that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As she concedes, this contention is foreclosed by United States v. Huerta-Pimental, 445 F.3d 1220, 1223-25 (9th Cir.

2006), and United States v. Santana, 526 F.3d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.

2 11-50426

Cites, in this corpus