Background
Bianca Ivette Jimenez appealed a judgment imposing an eighty-four-month sentence. Appointed counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California and United States v. Flores, stating the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issues. Jimenez did not file a response. During the appeal, the district court granted a motion for sentence reduction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure thirty-five, subsection b, but no notice of appeal regarding that reduction was filed.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record. It concurred with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presented no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. The court noted that while a sentence reduction was granted, the appeal before them was limited to the judgment imposing the sentence.
What it means going forward
The appeal is dismissed, and appointed counsel is excused from further responsibilities. The sentence reduction granted by the district court remains in effect, but the appellate court did not review it as no notice of appeal was filed regarding that specific order.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download