Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jiminez v. United States

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 23, 2013

MIGUEL ANGEL JIMINEZ, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

ORDER DENYING 28 U.S.C. 2255 MOTION

JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.

Before the court is Petitioner Miguel Angel Jiminez's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Mot. (Dkt. # 1).) Having reviewed the motion, all submissions filed in support of and opposition thereto, the record, and the applicable law, and being fully advised, the court DENIES Mr. Jiminez's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

In 2011, the court sentenced Mr. Jiminez to 340 months in prison following his conviction on 19 counts related to cocaine distribution and money laundering in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The conviction and sentence was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in May, 2013.

II. ANALYSIS

Mr. Jiminez makes four claims as the basis for his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion:

1. The district court lacked jurisdiction to preside over the charged offenses;
2. The Assistant United States Attorney committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument by allegedly asking the jurors to speculate as to the final destination of the cocaine when no such evidence existed;
3. The district court improperly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt; and
4. Trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present expert testimony concerning an alternative theory regarding the ultimate destination for the cocaine.

The court addresses each claim in the order presented.

1. Lack of Jurisdiction

Mr. Jiminez appears to claim that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his case because the government presented insufficient evidence to establish that he participated in a conspiracy to distribute drugs in the United States. This claim is barred because this specific issue was raised and rejected on direct appeal. See United States v. Hayes, 231 F.3d 1132, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Jiminez, et al., 2012 WL 2137515, at *1 (9th Cir. May 17, 2013). Mr. Jiminez attempts to present the same issue in the context of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, the Ninth Circuit found that there was sufficient evidence to support Mr. Jiminez's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.