Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50186/USCOURTS-ca5-19-50186-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benjamin Salgado
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-50186

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

BENJAMIN SALGADO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:18-CR-181-1

Before BENAVIDES, GRAVES, and HO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Benjamin Salgado appeals the within-guidelines sentence of 264 months 

of imprisonment imposed for his conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent 

to distribute methamphetamine. In his sole argument on appeal, Salgado 

asserts that the district court erred by including one pound of undelivered 

methamphetamine in the relevant drug quantity because he never intended to 

 

* 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

January 17, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-50186 Document: 00515276284 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/17/2020
No. 19-50186

2

deliver that amount to the confidential informant. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, 

comment. (n.5). 

This challenge to the drug quantity is subject to plain error review 

because Salgado did not advance the specific argument to the district court 

that he advances here. See United States v. Neal, 578 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 

2009). Instead, his argument at sentencing was based on the lack of an 

agreement to deliver the pound of methamphetamine. Given that the 

attributable drug quantity is a factual issue at sentencing, United States v. 

Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005), it is not reviewable under the 

plain error standard, United States v. Claiborne, 676 F.3d 434, 438 (5th Cir. 

2012), because “[q]uestions of fact capable of resolution by the district court 

upon proper objection at sentencing can never constitute plain error,” United 

States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50 (5th Cir. 1991). Even if Salgado preserved the 

alleged error in the district court, Salgado cannot establish clear error as the 

district court’s finding that he negotiated the sale of one pound of 

methamphetamine to the confidential informant was plausible in light of the 

record as a whole. See United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 764 

(5th Cir. 2008). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Case: 19-50186 Document: 00515276284 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/17/2020