Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-41156/USCOURTS-ca5-13-41156-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edward Ivan Salinas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-41156

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

EDWARD IVAN SALINAS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:13-CR-12-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Ivan Salinas appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded 

guilty to possession with intent to distribute about 781 kilograms of marijuana. 

He contends that the sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the 

district court wrongly calculated the guideline range by refusing to grant a 

four-level or two-level reduction for his minimal or minor role. We review for 

clear error a sentencing court’s determination that a defendant did not play a 

* 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 6, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-41156 Document: 00512890821 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/06/2015
No. 13-41156

minor or minimal role in the offense. United States v. Fernandez, 770 F.3d 

340, 345 (5th Cir. 2014). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous as long as 

it is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

and citations omitted). 

A mitigating role reduction “is not precluded” for a defendant who 

transported drugs and was held accountable only for the drugs he handled. 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(A) (2012). The Introductory Commentary to Section 

3B1 states:

This Part provides adjustments to the offense level based upon the 

role the defendant played in committing the offense. The 

determination of a defendant’s role in the offense is to be made on 

the basis of all conduct within the scope of §1B1.3 (Relevant 

Conduct), i.e., all conduct included under §1B1.3(a)(1)-(4), and not 

solely on the basis of elements and acts cited in the count of 

conviction.

Recently, we explained:

Section 3B1.2 does not contemplate that the participation level is 

to be evaluated in reference to the entire criminal enterprise of

which Defendant is a part. Instead, [§] 3B1.2 asks whether a 

defendant’s involvement is comparable to that of an average 

participant. Whether someone was an average participant is to be 

determined in light of the conduct for which the defendant is held 

responsible.

United State v. Perez-Solis, 709 F.3d 453, 471 (5th Cir. 2013)(internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted). Furthermore, “[i]t is not enough that 

a defendant does less than other participants; in order to qualify as a minor 

participant, a defendant must have been peripheral to the advancement of the 

illicit activity.” United States v. Thomas, 690 F.3d 358, 375-76 (5th Cir. 2012) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Also, Salinas’s role as a 

transporter does not necessarily entitle him to a sentence reduction. See id. at

376.

2

 Case: 13-41156 Document: 00512890821 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/06/2015
No. 13-41156

Salinas was only held responsible for the amount of marijuana found in 

the van he was driving and in a nearby shed, not for some larger amount that 

might have been part of an undefined broader conspiracy. Salinas was 

entrusted with driving the van and he also unloaded drugs from the van. Other 

participants carried the drugs out of the brush and loaded the van. Another 

participant who helped Salinas unload the van was not prosecuted. Salinas 

has not demonstrated that his role was minor or minimal with regard to his 

discrete offense or that he was less culpable than the average participant in 

light of the conduct for which he was held responsible. Here, the district court 

did not clearly err in denying Salinas a mitigating role reduction. See PerezSolis, 709 F.3d at 471-72. The judgment is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-41156 Document: 00512890821 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/06/2015