Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-20-07020/USCOURTS-ca10-20-07020-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward Robert Saldana II
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDWARD ROBERT SALDANA, II, 

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 20-7020

(D.C. No. 6:16-CR-00012-RAW-1)

(E.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BRISCOE, and EID, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Appellant Edward Robert Saldana II seeks appellate review of an order the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma entered at this court’s 

instruction following remand of Mr. Saldana’s previous appeal, United States v. Saldana, 

No. 19-7047 (10th Cir. March 26, 2020). This matter is before the court on: (1) the 

jurisdictional show cause order it issued on May 5, 2020; and (2) Mr. Saldana’s response 

to that order. Upon consideration, the court dismisses the appeal for the reasons set forth 

below.

In the case underlying this appeal, Mr. Saldana filed a motion to reduce his 

sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018. 

[ECF No. 53]. The district court denied Mr. Saldana’s motion, concluding that Mr. 

Saldana had “not established the existence of . . . extraordinary and compelling reasons 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 5, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 20-7020 Document: 010110357257 Date Filed: 06/05/2020 Page: 1
2

warranting a reduction in sentence” under § 3582(c)(1)(A). [ECF No. 58]. Mr. Saldana 

appealed. 

This court agreed with the district court that Mr. Saldana was not entitled to relief, 

but vacated the order denying the motion and remanded the case to the district court with 

instructions that—instead of denying the motion—the district court dismiss it for lack of 

jurisdiction. See United States v. Saldana, No. 19-7057 (10th Cir. March 26, 2020). 

Upon remand, the district court: (1) vacated its order denying Mr. Saldana’s 

§ 3582 motion [ECF No. 75]; and (2) instead entered an order that stated, in its entirety: 

“In accordance with the Order and Judgment entered on March 26, 2020, by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the court dismisses Defendant’s ‘Motion 

under Title 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for Reduction of Sentence’ [Doc. 53] for lack of 

jurisdiction.” [ECF No. 76]. Mr. Saldana again appealed.

“It is a fundamental or rudimentary principle of our judicial system that once an 

appellate court issues a mandate to a district court to dismiss an action for lack of 

jurisdiction, the district court does not have jurisdiction to recall or otherwise void our 

mandate or to reconsider the merits of an action. To argue otherwise is simply frivolous.” 

See United States v. Graham, 394 F. App’x 479, 481 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished). 

On remand, the district court did nothing more than this court had instructed it to 

do in its March 26, 2020 order in Mr. Saldana’s previous appeal. [Compare Saldana, 

No. 19-7057 (10th Cir. March 26, 2020) with ECF Nos. 75 & 76]. In essence, then, Mr. 

Saldana’s current appeal asks this court to reconsider the March 26, 2020 Order in his 

previous appeal although the time for any such request has passed and a second appeal is 

Appellate Case: 20-7020 Document: 010110357257 Date Filed: 06/05/2020 Page: 2
3

not the appropriate procedure through which to make such a request. See Fed. R. App. 

P. 40(a)(1). Mr. Saldana may not reassert in a second appeal issues this court expressly 

addressed in his first. See Graham, 394 F. App’x at 480-81.

Accordingly, the court dismisses Mr. Saldana’s appeal and denies all pending 

motions.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

by: Lisa A. Lee

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 20-7020 Document: 010110357257 Date Filed: 06/05/2020 Page: 3