Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02531/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02531-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 14cr1123-LAB-1 and

15cv2531-LAB

ORDER DENYING MOTION

PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

vs.

GUSTAVO GAYTAN-SALIM,

Defendant.

Pursuant to a plea agreement Defendant Gustavo Gaytan-Salim pled guilty to

importation of methamphetamine. The Court denied him a minor role adjustment, and

sentenced him to 75 months’ imprisonment. The plea agreement waived appeal, unless the

Court denied minor role adjustment or sentenced Gaytan-Salim above the high end of the

guideline range recommended by the government as provided in the plea agreement. 

The government made a sentencing recommendation that complied with the plea

agreement. (Compare Docket no. 13 (Plea Agreement) at 8:1–10 with Docket no. 18

(Government’s Sentencing Summary Chart).) The Defendant’s resulting guideline range

was 108 to 130 months. But the Court imposed a sentence below the guideline range. 

Gaytan-Salim therefore waived appeal on all grounds other than denial of minor role. He

ultimately appealed on that ground, but his appeal was unsuccessful. He now renews his

argument that the Court wrongfully denied a minor role adjustment.

- 1 - 14cr1123 and 15cv2531

Case 3:15-cv-02531-LAB Document 2 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The arguments Gaytan-Salim raises have no merit. He claims that his sentence was

based on his importation of 17 pounds (8 kilograms) of actual methamphetamine, but should

instead have been based on a mixture containing methamphetamine. (Docket no. 43 at 4.) 1

He does not say what he thinks the actual purity was, but he apparently feels it wasn’t high. 

(Id. at 5.) 

In fact, the Court’s denial of minor role was not based on the purity of the

methamphetamine. Instead, the Court reasoned that a drug organization was unlikely to

entrust a heavy load of methamphetamine to an unwilling and nervous first-timer, which is

what Gaytan-Salim claimed to be. (See Docket no. 36 (Sentencing Hrg. Tr.) at 17:6–20,

36:12–37:11.) The Court did not assume the methamphetamine was 100% pure, but treated

the weight of the drugs as the “gross weight.” (Id., 17:6.) Moreover, the Court gave other

reasons for denying minor role, besides the weight of the drugs. The reasons included the

amount of planning and time the offense involved, and the fact that Gaytan-Salim turned

over his own father-in-law’s car to be loaded with drugs by the organization. (See id. at

15:3–8, 16:23–17:6, 18:17–21, 37:12–19.) 

Gaytan-Salim postulates that he was “set up” by someone to be caught at the border,

and that the drug organization knew he was going to be caught. (Docket no. 43 at 6–7.) 

This is unsupported by the record, and beside the point. The Defendant pled guilty to

importing methamphetamine, thereby waiving his defenses to the charge. 

Additionally, Gaytan-Salim did not raise any of these arguments on appeal. See

United States v. Schlesinger, 49 F.3d 483, 485 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that nonconstitutional

errors that could have been raised on direct appeal may not generally be raised by § 2255

motion). He attributes the lapse to his attorney’s ineffectiveness. Even assuming this would

excuse his failure to raise the arguments on appeal, his attorney was not ineffective because

he did not make meritless arguments, see Wildman v. Johnson, 261 F.3d 832, 840 (9th Cir.

2001), nor for choosing to focus on stronger arguments. See Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 

/ / /

 All references are to the docket in the criminal case. 1

- 2 - 14cr1123 and 15cv2531

Case 3:15-cv-02531-LAB Document 2 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

745, 752–53 (1983) (explaining that counsel may abandon weaker arguments on appeal and

focus on key issues which present the most promising grounds for relief).

The motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 25, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 14cr1123 and 15cv2531

Case 3:15-cv-02531-LAB Document 2 Filed 11/30/15 Page 3 of 3