Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11226/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11226-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oscar Javier Salinas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11226

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

OSCAR JAVIER SALINAS,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-131-1

Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Javier Salinas pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). After determining Salinas’ advisory 

sentencing range under the Sentencing Guidelines was 135 to 168 months’ 

imprisonment, the district court sentenced him to, inter alia, 135 months’

imprisonment. Salinas challenges the substantive reasonableness of that 

sentence, contending: Guideline § 2G2.2, pertaining to child pornography,

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11226 Document: 00513300655 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/09/2015
No. 14-11226

2

lacks an empirical basis; and, the court failed to consider mitigating factors in 

support of a downward departure or variance.

Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, and 

a properly preserved objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for 

reasonableness under an abuse-of-discretion standard, the district court must 

still properly calculate the advisory Guidelines-sentencing range for use in 

deciding on the sentence to impose. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). In that respect, for issues preserved in district court, its application of 

the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual findings, only for clear error. 

E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008). As 

noted, Salinas does not claim procedural error; he maintains his sentence is 

substantively unreasonable. 

His claim that Guideline § 2G2.2 lacks an empirical basis, and, therefore,

fails to distinguish between the least culpable and most culpable defendants, 

is foreclosed by our precedent. E.g., United States v. Miller, 665 F.3d 114, 121–

22 (5th Cir. 2011).

In maintaining his sentence is substantively unreasonable in the light of 

mitigating evidence he presented to the district court, Salinas contends he 

deserved a lesser sentence due to: his lack of a prior criminal history; the fact 

that he never attempted to make physical contact with a minor; his education 

and employment history; his desire to seek treatment; the lack of a market 

effect from his actions; and, his acceptance of responsibility. The court 

considered Salinas’ assertions in support of a downward departure or variance, 

as well as the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, and concluded a sentence 

at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines sentencing range was appropriate. 

Salinas’ contentions amount to a mere disagreement with the weighing of the 

§ 3553(a) factors, and do not rebut the presumption of reasonableness that 

 Case: 14-11226 Document: 00513300655 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/09/2015
No. 14-11226

3

applies to his within-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Rashad, 687 

F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th 

Cir. 2009). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-11226 Document: 00513300655 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/09/2015