USA v. John Zimmerman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-40037 Affirmed] Judge: TMR, Judge: ECP, Judge: JEG. Mandate issue date is 11/28/2017 [17-40037]

Case: 17-40037

Document: 00514226318

Page: 1

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 17-40037
Summary Calendar

FILED
November 6, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JOHN CRAIG ZIMMERMAN,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:07-CR-232-1
Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

John Craig Zimmerman, federal prisoner # 71281-179, appeals the
district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of audita querela challenging the
substantive reasonableness of the cumulative 300-month sentence imposed
following his convictions for enticing a minor to engage in sexually explicit
conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of such conduct,
receiving child pornography, and possessing child pornography. Zimmerman

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-40037

Document: 00514226318

Page: 2

Date Filed: 11/06/2017

No. 17-40037
argues that he is entitled to relief in light of recent studies showing that
recidivism rates for sex offenders are not as high as previously thought.
Although the district court did not explain its decision denying
Zimmerman’s

request

for

relief,

Zimmerman

cannot

challenge

the

reasonableness of his sentence through a writ of audita querela. See United
States v. Miller, 599 F.3d 484, 488 (5th Cir. 2010).

Further, although

Zimmerman has filed a letter pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
28 (j), we decline to address the issue raised therein because it is raised for the
first time and relies on cases available before Zimmerman filed his opening
brief.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2