United States v. Jose Jimenez-Chaidez

Good Law
96 F.4th 1257
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 25, 202422-50069California8,010 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

In September 2019, Jimenez was living in Tecate, Mexico and had been working at a bakery in Southern California. He crossed the United States/Mexico border five to six days a week. On September 10, Jimenez entered the United States through the Tecate Port of Entry. In the post- primary screening area, a border patrol canine indicated that drugs were present in Jimenez’s car. Officers found cocaine and methamphetamine hidden in the trunk and the modified gas tank. Jimenez was charged with knowingly importing cocaine and methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960. At trial, Jimenez’s counsel argued that Jimenez did not know the drugs were in his car, and he was just a “blind mule.”

USA V. JIMENEZ-CHAIDEZ

A. Evidence of Prior Smuggling Before Jimenez’s trial, the Government interviewed Alejandro Ramos, a prisoner who had pleaded guilty to importing methamphetamine. Ramos stated he worked as a “scout” in the same organization as Jimenez and, on several prior occasions, including multiple times in May 2019, had met Jimenez in the United States to unload drugs from Jimenez’s car. The Government moved in limine to admit Ramos’s testimony, border…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.