United States v. Alexander Jimenez, III
692 F. App'x 192
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2014 law enforcement seized a laptop from Alexander Jimenez III that contained numerous child pornography files; Jimenez admitted receiving, trading, and viewing such images via a file‑sharing network.
- Jimenez pleaded guilty to receipt of a visual depiction of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2); Guidelines calculation yielded an advisory offense level producing a life range but statutory maximum was 240 months, which was imposed.
- The PSR and First Addendum resolved most of Jimenez’s 15 objections; two minor corrections were made. Two days before sentencing a Second Addendum reported victims’ counsel had requested $25,000 per victim (five victims; $125,000 total) and recommended restitution, relying on a Paroline analysis letter that was not in the district court record.
- At sentencing the district court imposed 240 months’ imprisonment, 30 years’ supervised release, and restitution of $25,000 for each of the five victims. Jimenez appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence but found the restitution order defective for failing to apply the Paroline proximate‑cause analysis and vacated the restitution award, remanding for further proceedings; the court otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court’s denial of a downward departure/variance was reviewable | Jimenez: district court thought § 3553(b)(2) barred departures post‑Booker, so sentence must be vacated | Gov: Booker made Guidelines advisory; departures vs variances distinct; district court properly applied § 3553(a) | Court: No jurisdiction to review denial of downward departure absent district court belief it lacked authority; district court did not err; sentence affirmed |
| Whether Rule 32(i)(3)(B) was violated by not resolving PSR objections | Jimenez: district court failed to rule on all objections | Gov: many objections were abandoned or addressed; only a non‑PSR allocution issue remained | Court: No plain error — district court asked, counsel abandoned objections or did not seek PSR changes; rule satisfied |
| Whether restitution complied with Paroline proximate‑cause analysis | Jimenez: restitution award unsupported; district court failed to analyze Paroline factors | Gov: victims’ counsel letter (and Second Addendum) supplied Paroline analysis | Court: Vacated restitution — district court made no Paroline analysis and record did not show the letter was considered; error affected substantial rights; remand for proper analysis |
| Whether Government may present new evidence on remand for restitution | Jimenez: reversal should not allow new evidence | Gov: should be allowed to present victims’ materials | Court: Special circumstances permit Government to present additional evidence on remand to aid Paroline analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (held Guidelines mandatory provision unconstitutional; Guidelines advisory)
- Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014) (restitution under §2259 limited to losses proximately caused by defendant; courts should consider non‑exhaustive factors)
- United States v. Gutierrez‑Hernandez, 581 F.3d 251 (5th Cir. 2009) (procedural/substantive sentence review framework)
- United States v. Sam, 467 F.3d 857 (5th Cir. 2006) (limited jurisdiction to review denial of downward departure)
- United States v. Maturin, 488 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2007) (error overstating restitution affects substantial rights and fairness)