Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01478/USCOURTS-ca8-07-01478-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jorge Salazar-Gomez
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1478

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jorge Salazar-Gomez, also known as * District of Nebraska.

Manuel Salazar-Gomez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 29, 2008

Filed: January 31, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jorge Salazar-Gomez (Salazar-Gomez) appeals the 120-month prison sentence

the district court1

 imposed after Salazar-Gomez pled guilty to conspiring to distribute

and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and distributing and possessing with intent to distribute

50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1).

Salazar-Gomez’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

Appellate Case: 07-1478 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2008 Entry ID: 3397463
2

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

-2-

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing (1) the district court erred in sentencing

Salazar-Gomez to the statutory mandatory minimum sentence because a co-defendant

received a less severe sentence; (2) the requirement of a government motion for

substantial assistance to depart below the mandatory minimum violates the separation

of powers by giving too much power to the prosecution; and (3) the government’s

delay in indicting Salazar-Gomez prejudiced his ability to provide substantial

assistance. 

These arguments are without merit. First, the district court had no discretion,

without a government departure motion or Salazar-Gomez’s qualification for safetyvalve relief, to sentence him below the mandatory minimum sentence. See United

States v. Gregg, 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006) (rejecting an argument that the

district court had discretion to determine whether the ultimate sentence is reasonable

and to impose a non-Guidelines sentence when a portion of the sentence is the result

of a mandatory minimum sentence; “Booker2

 does not relate to statutorily-imposed

sentences”); United States v. Chacon, 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003) (stating

“the only authority for the district court to depart below the statutorily mandated

minimum sentence is found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and (f), which apply only when

the government makes a motion for substantial assistance or when the defendant

qualifies under the safety valve relief”) (citing United States v. Auginash, 266 F. 3d

781, 785 (8th Cir. 2001). 

Second, requiring a government motion to depart below the mandatory

minimum does not violate the separation of powers doctrine. See United States v.

Holbdy, 489 F.3d 910, 914 (8th Cir. 2007) (requiring a government motion before the

court can deviate from a statutory mandatory minimum sentence for defendant’s

substantial assistance does not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and Booker

does not provide an avenue to reconsider such holding). 

Appellate Case: 07-1478 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2008 Entry ID: 3397463
-3-

Third, Salazar-Gomez’s guilty plea forecloses his challenge to the alleged preindictment delay, see United States v. Staples, 435 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir.) (holding

a valid guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects or errors), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct.

148 (2006), and in any event, there has been no showing the delay caused SalazarGomez to lose access to any specific testimony or documents that would have aided

his defense, see United States v. Hance, 501 F.3d 900, 905-06 (8th Cir. 2007)

(discussing pre-indictment delay).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. We grant counsel leave to withdraw, and

we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 07-1478 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/31/2008 Entry ID: 3397463