UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lupita JAIMES, Defendant-Appellant.
Decided: April 14, 2020
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Ryan A. Sausedo, Lyndzie Marie Carter, Daniel Earl Zipp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee Keith H. Rutman, Attorney, Keith Rutman, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
Lupita Jaimes appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for importation of heroin and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Jaimes contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of her limited role as a courier, her lack of violent criminal history, and other mitigating factors presented at sentencing. But, the district court varied downward from the Guidelines range to reflect some of these circumstances. Its decision not to vary further was not an abuse of discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The below-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the quantity of drugs Jaimes transported and the other aggravating circumstances of the offense. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; see also United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez, 587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.