United States of America v. Adam Jesus Jimenez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ADAM JESUS JIMENEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 23-773
D.C. No. 3:20-cr-02748-JAH-1
Southern District of California, San
Diego
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
AUG 31 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-773
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 of 2 --