United States v. Juan Jimenez-Nava ( 2019 )

Case: 18-11393 Document: 00515193000 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 18-11393 FILED
November 8, 2019
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JUAN JIMENEZ-NAVA, also known as Cesar Edmundo Murguia,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CR-93-3
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Juan Jimenez-Nava, also known as Cesar Edmundo Murguia, appeals
the within-Guidelines, 262-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 846.
He argues that the district court reversibly erred by rejecting his request for a
mitigating-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, and he alternatively
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 18-11393 Document: 00515193000 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2019
No. 18-11393
argues that remand is proper because the district court failed to articulate its
factual basis for rejecting his request, as required by United States v. Melton,
930 F.2d 1096, 1099 (5th Cir. 1991).
Whether a defendant is a minor or minimal participant under Section
3B1.2 is a factual question reviewed for clear error. United States v. Gomez-
Valle, 828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2016). The district court implicitly found
that Jimenez-Nava’s conduct was neither minimal nor minor. This finding was
plausible in light of the record as a whole. Thus, the district court did not
clearly err by rejecting Jimenez-Nava’s request for a mitigating-role
adjustment. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203–04 (5th Cir. 2005).
As for Jimenez-Nava’s argument that remand is proper in light of
Melton, we have limited remand to cases in which counsel asked the sentencing
court to articulate the factual basis for its finding and the reasons for refusing
a role reduction. See United States v. Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d 260, 266 (5th
Cir. 2017). Because Jimenez-Nava made no such request, Melton has no
application here.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2