United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED April 4, 2025 No. 23-50223 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jesus Jaime Jimenez,

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,

Respondent—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:14-CV-420 ______________________________ Before King, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge: A Texas state jury convicted Jesus Jaime Jimenez of organized crime that involved violent robbery. The state trial court sentenced Jimenez to 50 years in prison. In this federal habeas case, Jimenez contends that his convic- tion was tainted by judicial bias. We deny relief.1

_____________________ 1 Jimenez made two motions that were carried with the case. First, Jimenez’s motion to appoint counsel is denied as moot because this case was decided without oral argument. Second, Jimenez’s motion to expand the COA is denied for the reasons below. Case: 23-50223 Document: 119 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/04/2025

No. 23-50223

I We detail (A) the facts of Jimenez’s case, (B) the facts underlying Jimenez’s judicial-bias claim, and (C) the procedural history of this case. A Jimenez was a member of the Mexican Mafia. Jimenez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 325, 328 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. ref’d). In June 2005, Jimenez and five fellow mafiosi conspired to rob—and then violently robbed—several drug dealers of two cars (a 1995 Mustang and a 1996 Fire- bird), a Yamaha motorcycle, and some cash. Ibid. The State of Texas indicted Jimenez in a Kerr County court for organized crime in March 2006. At Jimenez’s trial in April 2006, four of the mafiosi testified for the State. Jimenez, 307 S.W.3d at 329. Based on their testimony and other evidence, the jury convicted Jimenez of engaging in organized criminal activity and sen- tenced him to 50 years in prison. Ibid. B Judge Emil Karl Prohl presided over Jimenez’s trial. The judicial-bias claim in this case stems from Judge Prohl’s relationship with the Kerr County District Attorney, Ron Sutton. Starting in 2002, Sutton began misappropriating monies collected un- der the Texas’s civil asset forfeiture statute. Jimenez v. Lumpkin, No. SA-14- CA-0420, 2023 WL 2290292, at *12 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2023). Between 2002 and 2008, Sutton misappropriated these funds to pay for travel ex- penses for himself, his wife, his employees, and his employees’ spouses for their attendance at legal conferences. Ibid. These expenses included meals, lodging, transportation, airfare, and entertainment. Ibid. From 2003 to 2007, Sutton also misappropriated these funds to pay for the travel expenses of

2 Case: 23-50223 Document: 119 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/04/2025

No. 23-50223

Judge Prohl