United States of America v. Luis Armando Jimenez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LUIS ARMANDO JIMENEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-50054
D.C. No. 3:20-cr-03874-BAS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Luis Armando Jimenez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 120-month sentence and 4 years of supervised release imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin and
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction
* 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
JUL 5 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jimenez contends that the district court erred by not addressing his
mitigating arguments. We need not resolve whether Jimenez preserved this claim
because we would affirm under either de novo or plain error review. See United
States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating standards of
review for preserved and unpreserved clams of procedural error). The record
demonstrates that the district court listened to Jimenez’s arguments because it
made the recommendations for participation in a residential reentry center and the
residential drug abuse program that Jimenez requested. The court explained that it
would not vary further below the Guidelines range in light of Jimenez’s significant
criminal history. This explanation allows for meaningful appellate review and
communicates that the parties’ arguments were heard and a reasoned decision was
made. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
The district court was not required to repeat Jimenez’s mitigating arguments just to
show it had considered them. See United States v. Perez-Perez, 512 F.3d 514, 516
(9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --