IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20307

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

SANTOS ALFONSO ZAMORA-SALAZAR, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

CARL E. STEWART, Chief Judge:

Defendant-Appellant Santos Alfonso Zamora-Salazar appeals his 

convictions for conspiracy to import and importation of methamphetamine. He 

also appeals the sentencing enhancement imposed by the district court. For 

the following reasons, we affirm the convictions and sentence.

I. Facts & Procedural History

After being taken into federal custody on April 6, 2015, Zamora-Salazar 

was charged, along with Mario Cruz-Becerra, with conspiring to import 

methamphetamine1 and aiding and abetting importation of 

 

1 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 952(a), 960(a)(1), and 960(b)(1).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 28, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

2

methamphetamine.2 Zamora-Salazar was also charged with being an illegal 

alien in possession of a firearm.3 A three-day jury trial was held and CruzBecerra cooperated with the Government, providing trial testimony as to the 

events that occurred giving rise to the charged offenses. 

Cruz-Becerra testified that he had an agreement with his cousin Victor 

Becerra, who lives in Mexico, to receive packages containing drugs at his 

residential address in Texas. In early April 2015, Victor sent the first package 

from Mexico to Cruz-Becerra via FedEx. The package contained a water cooler 

with methamphetamine packed inside the compressor. Once Victor sent the 

package, he messaged Cruz-Becerra to let him know that it was on the way.4 

When the package arrived, Cruz-Becerra sent a message to Victor confirming 

receipt but did not open the package even though it was addressed to him. 

Victor replied that he would send “someone” to retrieve the package and that 

person would arrive in approximately half an hour. A half hour later, ZamoraSalazar and his half-brother Constancio Diaz Salazar (“Diaz”) showed up at 

Cruz-Becerra’s residence in an Escalade; Zamora-Salazar was driving.5 When 

they arrived, Diaz asked Cruz-Becerra if he was Victor’s cousin. Cruz-Becerra 

answered “yes.” Cruz-Becerra and Diaz then loaded the package displaying a 

shipping label from Mexico6 in the Escalade and Zamora-Salazar and Diaz left. 

A week later, Victor sent Cruz-Becerra a second package from Mexico 

via UPS that contained an AC unit. When the package arrived at the port of 

entry in Laredo, Texas, it was sent for a secondary inspection. It was there 

 

2 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and 960(b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2.

3 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5) and 924(a)(2). 4 Cruz-Becerra and Victor used “WhatsApp” to communicate about the packages. 5 Cruz-Becerra agreed on cross-examination that he assumed that Victor directed the 

men to “come get” the packages.

6 The record indicates that federal agents never recovered the FedEx package but they

obtained a copy of the original mailing label through a subpoena issued to FedEx. 

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

3

that federal agents discovered approximately six kilograms of 

methamphetamine inside the AC unit’s compressor. The agents replaced the 

drugs inside the compressor with dirt, reassembled the AC unit with a GPS 

tracker, put a trip wire inside the unit that would notify them if it was opened, 

placed the unit back inside the original packaging, and put a layer of 

cellophane around the box. A federal agent disguised as a UPS driver then 

made a controlled delivery of the package to Cruz-Becerra’s residence. When 

Cruz-Becerra arrived home, he messaged Victor to confirm receipt of the 

package and again did not open the package that was addressed to him. Victor 

replied that he would send “someone” to retrieve the package in approximately 

thirty minutes. A half hour later, Zamora-Salazar and Diaz arrived at CruzBecerra’s residence in the same Escalade they had driven to retrieve the FedEx 

package Victor had sent from Mexico a week earlier.7 The two men exited the 

vehicle, Zamora-Salazar opened the tailgate,8 Cruz-Becerra and Diaz loaded 

the UPS package displaying a mailing label from Mexico in the bed of the 

vehicle, and Zamora-Salazar and Diaz drove away. 

Federal law enforcement tailed Zamora-Salazar and Diaz via helicopter 

and ground vehicle as they drove back to their residence which was

approximately four to six miles away. When the two men arrived home a short 

while later, they exited the Escalade, removed the cellophane from the UPS 

package, and then suddenly pointed at the helicopter, indicating that they had 

noticed the presence of law enforcement. Zamora-Salazar went inside the 

house and shortly thereafter fled the property. Zamora-Salazar’s wife 

Samantha consented to a search of the residence, where federal agents found 

 

7 When testifying at trial, Cruz-Becerra identified Zamora-Salazar as the person 

driving the Escalade by pointing to him.

8 Although there is some discrepancy in the trial transcript, it appears that ZamoraSalazar exited the vehicle for the limited purpose of opening the tailgate for Diaz and CruzBecerra to place the UPS package inside of the bed of the Escalade. 

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

4

methamphetamine crumbs near the toilet and a loaded sawed-off shotgun in 

Zamora-Salazar’s bedroom. 

Zamora-Salazar attempted to hide inside of a neighbor’s car, but the 

neighbor alerted law enforcement of his location. Zamora-Salazar was 

arrested and Mirandized. Once he was in custody, Zamora-Salazar stated to 

federal authorities that he was “not the main person involved” and that he 

reported to a person named “Big Z.” He also acknowledged post-arrest that he 

had known that the AC unit had contained methamphetamine. 

A three-day jury trial was held and, at the close of the Government’s case 

and at the close of the evidence, Zamora-Salazar moved for a judgment of 

acquittal which was overruled. Zamora-Salazar was convicted of conspiracy to 

import 500 grams or more of methamphetamine,9 aiding and abetting the 

importation of 500 grams or more of methamphetamine,10 and being an illegal 

alien in possession of a firearm.11 

The presentence report (“PSR”) grouped the importation counts together 

and assessed a combined total offense level of 42. Included in this calculation 

was a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 cmt. 

n.4(A). The PSR based the enhancement on the contents of the Government’s 

pretrial notice of its intent to introduce evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or 

acts. FED. R. EVID. 404(b). In this notice, the Government stated that “[o]n or 

about May 13, 2015, Zamora-Salazar and Cruz-Becerra were arraigned before 

Magistrate Judge Nancy Johnson. While in the holding cell at the U.S. Federal 

Courthouse, Zamora-Salazar threatened Cruz-Becerra by asking him whether 

he knew what happened to the family members of individuals who ‘talk.’” 

 

9 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 952(a), 960(a)(1) and 960(b)(1).

10 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1) and 960(b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2.

11 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5) and 924(a)(2). Zamora-Salazar does not appeal his conviction 

on this count.

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

5

Defense counsel objected to the enhancement, stating Zamora-Salazar denied 

making the statement reported in the PSR. A trial transcript was not available 

at sentencing and defense counsel proffered that Cruz-Becerra testified that 

Zamora-Salazar said to him “Do you know what you’re doing? There could be 

problems later on.”12 The district court interjected, stating “[w]e can go get a 

transcript, but let’s assume that’s as close as we can, and I kind of remember 

it generally.” Defense counsel continued and argued that the statement should 

not be interpreted as a threat. The Government argued in response that the

statement was meant to intimidate Cruz-Becerra “into not cooperating with 

the [G]overnment and testifying against him.” The district court responded by 

stating that “I might say also just for the record, I was here and I listened to 

the entire trial. In fact, that—I believe that was the statement made in the 

presentence report that the judge, you know, was here at the time.” The 

district court overruled the objection to the enhancement. 

Zamora-Salazar’s total offense level of 42, coupled with a criminal 

history category of II, yielded an advisory Guidelines range of 360 months to 

life imprisonment. The district court sentenced Zamora-Salazar to a term of

360 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. This appeal 

ensued. 

II. Discussion

On appeal, Zamora-Salazar first argues that there was insufficient 

evidence presented at trial to support his convictions for conspiracy to import 

and importation of methamphetamine. He also argues that the district court 

 

12 The trial transcript reflects that when Cruz-Becerra was asked on the stand, while 

in the presence of Zamora-Salazar, to testify as to the statements Zamora-Salazar made to 

him outside of the courthouse, Cruz-Becerra replied that Zamora-Salazar had asked him: 

“[a]bout did I know what I was doing” and “[a]bout how there could be problems later on.”

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

6

erred in imposing the two-level sentencing enhancement for obstruction of 

justice. We address each argument in turn.

A. Conspiracy to Import and Importation

This court conducts a de novo review of “a district court’s denial of a posttrial motion for a judgment of acquittal.” United States v. Lopez-Monzon, 850 

F.3d 202, 206 (5th Cir. 2017). Moving for a judgment of acquittal is considered 

to be a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Id. The jury’s verdict is 

afforded “great deference” on appeal. Id. In determining whether the evidence 

was sufficient to support the conviction, the question is whether “any rational 

trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond 

reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). 

Given this court’s highly deferential standard of review, the “inquiry is ‘limited 

to whether the jury’s verdict was reasonable, not whether we believe it to be 

correct.’” United States v. Gulley, 526 F.3d 809, 816 (5th Cir. 2008) (per 

curiam) (quoting United States v. Williams, 264 F.3d 561, 576 (5th Cir. 2001)). 

To uphold the conviction, there is no requirement that the evidence 

exclude every possible “hypothesis of innocence.” Lopez-Monzon, 850 F.3d at 

206. “A jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence.” 

Id. The reviewing court only ascertains whether the jury made a “rational 

decision,” not “whether the jury correctly determined guilt or innocence.” Id. 

Credibility choices that support the jury’s verdict must be accepted and it is 

not within this court’s province on appeal to reweigh the evidence. United 

States v. Castaneda, 548 F. App’x 140, 142–43 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam)

(citation omitted). If the jury was presented with sufficient evidence to support 

its verdict, the verdict must be upheld. Lopez-Monzon, 850 F.3d at 206. 

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

7

Count 1 – Conspiracy to Import Methamphetamine13

To prove conspiracy to import drugs, the Government must establish

that a defendant agreed to import drugs and knowingly and voluntarily 

participated in the agreement. United States v. Paul, 142 F.3d 836, 841 (5th 

Cir. 1998). “The jury may infer any element of [conspiracy] from 

circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Lechuga, 888 F.2d 1472, 1476 (5th 

Cir. 1989). A defendant’s agreement may be “inferred from concert of action,” 

his “voluntary participation may be inferred from a collocation of 

circumstances,” and his “knowledge may be inferred from surrounding 

circumstances.” Id. at 1476–77 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although 

a defendant’s participation in a conspiracy must be voluntary to support a 

guilty verdict, his personal role can be minor. Id. at 1477. 

Count 2 – Aiding and Abetting the Importation of Methamphetamine14

To support a conviction for the crime of importation of a controlled 

substance, the Government must establish that: “(1) the defendant played a 

role in bringing a quantity of a controlled substance into the United States 

from outside of the country; (2) the defendant knew the substance was 

controlled; and (3) the defendant knew the substance would enter the United 

States.” Lopez-Monzon, 850 F.3d at 206 (quoting United States v. Moreno, 185 

F.3d 465, 471 (5th Cir. 1999)). To prove aiding and abetting the importation 

of drugs, the Government must establish that the defendant associated with 

the criminal venture, purposefully participated in the crime, and sought to 

make it successful. United States v. Pando Franco, 503 F.3d 389, 394 (5th Cir. 

2007).

 

13 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 952(a), 960(a)(1), and 960(b)(1).

14 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 960(a)(1), and 960(b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2.

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 7 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

8

Zamora-Salazar argues that the evidence was insufficient to support 

both importation convictions because the Government failed to prove beyond a 

reasonable doubt that he “entered an agreement to import, had knowledge of 

the importation, played any role in the importation, shared the criminal intent 

to import, or took some step to aid in the importation.” He argues that, while 

the evidence showed that he and Diaz rode to pick up two packages of 

methamphetamine after they had arrived in the United States, no evidence 

showed that he knew the packages came from outside the United States or that 

he had any role in bringing the packages into the United States. Citing Paul,15

Zamora-Salazar argues that his involvement with the methamphetamine 

occurred after it arrived in the United States. For the reasons that follow, 

these arguments fail.

A review of the record reveals that sufficient evidence was presented at 

trial to support Zamora-Salazar’s convictions of conspiracy to import 

methamphetamine and importation of methamphetamine. As the 

Government correctly points out, the timing and circumstances of the drug 

shipments show a “concert of action” supporting the jury’s conclusion that 

Zamora-Salazar knowingly and voluntarily participated in an agreement to 

import drugs. Lechuga, 888 F.2d at 1476–77. It is undisputed that CruzBecerra and his cousin Victor had an agreement that Victor would ship 

packages containing methamphetamine from Mexico to Cruz-Becerra’s home 

address in the United States. Each time a package arrived to Cruz-Becerra’s 

home, he did not open it even though it was addressed to him. Instead, he 

alerted Victor of the package’s arrival and Victor replied that “someone” would 

be there in about a half hour to retrieve the drugs. Both times, Zamora-Salazar 

showed up to Cruz-Becerra’s home within the timeframe designated by Victor 

 

15 142 F.3d at 842.

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 8 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

9

to pick up the packages. Furthermore, when Zamora-Salazar and Diaz arrived 

to retrieve the first package with the water cooler inside, Diaz asked CruzBecerra if he was Victor’s cousin, a further indication that the men had likely

directly communicated with Victor.16 

Aside from evidence supporting the jury’s inference that Zamora-Salazar 

and Diaz communicated with Victor about the drug shipments, the packages 

themselves both displayed shipping labels from Mexico. The FedEx package 

with the water cooler inside displayed a shipping label from Mexico.17 It could 

be reasonably inferred that Zamora-Salazar would have expected the second 

package also to be from Mexico. Aside from that inference, the fact that the 

second package was from Mexico would have been definitively revealed to him 

when he opened the back of his Escalade, watched the package being placed in 

the bed of the vehicle, and saw that it also had a shipping label from Mexico. 

Finally, Zamora-Salazar admitted after he was apprehended and in 

federal custody that he was “not the main person involved,” that he reported 

to a person by the name of “Big Z,” and that he knew that the AC unit had 

contained methamphetamine. These admissions indicate that Zamora-Salazar 

 

16 Citing this court’s opinion in United States v. Campos, No. 92-4573, 1994 WL 

144866, at *9 (5th Cir. Apr. 14, 1994), Zamora-Salazar argues that any knowledge that Diaz 

had about Victor cannot be imputed to himself. While it is true that this court will not impute 

Diaz’s knowledge of Victor to Zamora-Salazar, a reasonable jury could nevertheless infer that 

Zamora-Salazar would not drive himself and Diaz to Cruz-Becerra’s home to pick up a 

package without any knowledge of where the package came from or who shipped the package. 

That Diaz confirmed Victor’s identity with Cruz-Becerra after the two men arrived to pick up 

the first drug shipment merely strengthens the reasonableness of the inference. Moreover, 

this conclusion is supported by Cruz-Becerra’s testimony at trial that the three men only 

briefly greeted one another and did not discuss any details regarding the packages during 

either pick-up, suggesting that Zamora-Salazar and Diaz already knew who sent the 

packages and where they came from prior to their arrival. See Lechuga, 888 F.2d at 1476–

77 (noting that a defendant’s “knowledge may be inferred from surrounding circumstances”). 

17 According to the records subpoenaed from FedEx by the Government, the shipping 

label on the package not only reflected an origin of Mexico but the surrounding language on 

the package was also in Spanish.

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 9 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

10

knowingly and voluntarily chose to participate in a larger scheme involving 

others for the purpose of importing drugs. See Lechuga, 888 F.2d at 1477

(observing that a defendant’s participation in a conspiracy must be voluntary 

to support a guilty verdict but his personal role can be minor). Accordingly, a 

rational jury could infer from this evidence that Zamora-Salazar conspired to 

import methamphetamine into the United States. Paul, 142 F.3d at 841

(explaining that, to prove conspiracy to import drugs, the Government must 

establish that a defendant agreed to import drugs and knowingly and 

voluntarily participated in the agreement).

This evidence also supports Zamora-Salazar’s conviction of importation 

of methamphetamine on grounds that: (1) he played a role in bringing 

controlled substances into the United States from outside the country; (2) he 

knew that the substances were controlled; and (3) he knew the drugs would 

enter the United States. Lopez-Monzon, 850 F.3d at 206. First, ZamoraSalazar’s role in bringing the controlled substances into the United States was 

clear: he personally retrieved the drugs each time they were shipped directly 

from Mexico to Cruz-Becerra’s residence in Texas. The evidence supports that 

Zamora-Salazar was an intended recipient of the drug shipments because 

Cruz-Becerra allowed each of the unopened packages to be placed in the bed of 

the Escalade Zamora-Salazar was driving, even though Cruz-Becerra’s name 

and address were on the mailing labels. Second, Zamora-Salazar conceded 

post-arrest that he knew the package with the AC unit had contained

methamphetamine, a controlled substance. Third, Zamora-Salazar arrived at

Cruz-Becerra’s Texas residence to pick up each drug shipment within the 

limited timeframe designated by Victor, indicating that he had communicated 

with the person who had shipped the drugs from Mexico and knew prior to the 

arrival of the shipments that the drugs would enter the United States. 

Moreover, each drug shipment displayed a mailing label from Mexico. For the 

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 10 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

11

reasons discussed above, this evidence equally supports a reasonable inference 

that Zamora-Salazar associated with the criminal venture, purposefully 

participated in the crime, and sought to make it successful. Pando Franco, 503 

F.3d at 394.

Zamora-Salazar’s reliance on Paul is misplaced. In Paul, the evidence 

established that a smuggler placed a quantity of cocaine aboard a vessel while 

it was docked in Guyana and, several days after the vessel reached the United 

States, contacted the defendants to retrieve the drugs. 142 F.3d at 838, 842. 

One defendant went to the ship to retrieve the cocaine and the other defendant 

did not, although that defendant was ultimately found with directions to the 

ship and $10,000. Id. at 842. This court reversed the defendants’ convictions 

for conspiracy to import cocaine on grounds that “the evidence did not clearly 

establish that [the defendants] agreed to participate in and played a role in 

bringing the cocaine into the United States.” Id. at 842 (reasoning that there 

was “no proof that either defendant was even aware of the shipment’s existence 

until [they were called] to retrieve it”). 

Zamora-Salazar argues that, like the defendants in Paul, the evidence 

presented at trial showed that his involvement with the methamphetamine 

occurred after it arrived in the United States. This argument falls short for 

several reasons. Unlike the Paul defendants, Zamora-Salazar was put on 

notice that he was retrieving drugs that were being imported into the United 

States when he picked up the first package containing methamphetamine in a 

water cooler that displayed a shipping label from Mexico. Zamora-Salazar had 

a second opportunity to observe the foreign origin of the drugs when he was at 

Cruz-Becerra’s home a week later and again saw that the package containing 

the AC unit displayed a shipping label from Mexico. Additionally, unlike the

Paul defendants, the record evidence here supports the conclusion that 

Zamora-Salazar and Diaz were in prior contact with the person shipping the 

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 11 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

12

drugs from a foreign country and had knowledge that the drug shipments 

would be arriving prior to their delivery at Cruz-Becerra’s residence.18 

Further, unlike the Paul defendants, the evidence suggests that ZamoraSalazar was an intended recipient of the shipments from Mexico, rather than 

Cruz-Becerra, since he retrieved each package within thirty minutes of its 

arrival and Cruz-Becerra gave him each unopened package without comment.

The Paul defendants, on the other hand, were not contacted regarding the drug 

delivery until days after the vessel where the drugs were located reached the 

United States. Id. at 838, 842. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented 

in Paul that the defendants were able to observe foreign shipping labels or any 

type of label on the packages indicating that the drugs had come from another 

country. Accordingly, Paul is not controlling here. 

Zamora-Salazar’s reliance on Campos is also misplaced. In Campos, we 

distinguished between “the complete absence of evidence” that a defendant is 

unaware of a controlled substance’s foreign origin and the “minimal” and thus 

sufficient evidence of such knowledge. 1994 WL 144866, at *11. In that case, 

this court referenced its opinion in United States v. Reynolds, 511 F.2d 603 (5th 

Cir. 1975), wherein it concluded that an investor in a drug conspiracy could be 

expected to inquire as to the origin of the drugs. Id. at *10. We also referred 

to our opinion in United States v. Merritt, 736 F.2d 223 (5th Cir. 1984), wherein 

we reasoned that the defendants were on notice of the foreign origin of the 

drugs because the drugs arrived on an ocean-going vessel. Id. at *11. Both of 

these cases presumably featured “minimal” and thus sufficient evidence that 

 

18 Zamora-Salazar and Diaz arrived to pick up each shipment within the half hour 

timeframe designated by Victor, indicating that they had contemporaneously communicated 

with him regarding the drug shipments from Mexico. Additionally, when picking up the first 

shipment, Diaz asked Cruz-Becerra if he was Victor’s cousin, confirming that the men were 

likely aware that the drugs were being shipped by Victor who lived in Mexico. 

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 12 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

13

the defendant was aware of the foreign origin of the controlled substances. Id. 

at *10–11. 

Here, in contrast, there was more than “minimal” evidence that ZamoraSalazar was aware of the foreign origin of the drugs. The FedEx package that 

Zamora-Salazar and Diaz picked up from Cruz-Becerra’s home displayed a

shipping label from Mexico. Zamora-Salazar had a subsequent opportunity to

observe the foreign origin of the drugs when he picked up the UPS package, 

from the same location, displaying yet another shipping label from Mexico. 

Moreover, Zamora-Salazar’s arrival at Cruz-Becerra’s home within thirty 

minutes of Victor messaging Cruz-Becerra from Mexico to alert him that 

someone was coming to retrieve the drugs indicates that Zamora-Salazar had 

prior communication with Victor and knew he was retrieving shipments from 

Mexico before he even saw the shipping labels. A rational jury could 

reasonably conclude from these facts that there was at least “minimal” 

evidence that Zamora-Salazar was aware of the foreign origin of the packages 

containing the methamphetamine. See id. at *11. 

In light of the aforementioned reasoning and this court’s high level of 

deference afforded to the jury’s verdict on appeal, we hold that sufficient 

evidence was presented at trial to support Zamora-Salazar’s convictions for 

conspiracy to import and importation of methamphetamine. See Paul, 142 

F.3d at 841; Lopez-Monzon, 850 F.3d at 206; Gulley, 526 F.3d at 816.19 

 

19 Citing Paul, Zamora-Salazar argues that “the fundamental problem with the 

government’s argument is its confusion between evidence that is sufficient to support 

convictions for conspiring to import and importing a controlled substance and evidence that 

i[s] sufficient to support convictions for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and 

distributing a controlled substance.” See 142 F.3d at 840–42. The implication here is that 

the Government charged Zamora-Salazar with the wrong crimes. This argument fails, 

however, in light of our holding that the evidence was sufficient to support Zamora-Salazar’s 

importation convictions. See Paul, 142 F.3d at 841; Lopez-Monzon, 850 F.3d at 206. 

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 13 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

14

B. Obstruction of Justice Sentencing Enhancement

Zamora-Salazar also argues that the district court clearly erred in 

imposing the sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice. We disagree.

Section 3C1.1 provides for a two-level enhancement of the offense level 

if a defendant attempted to obstruct or impede the administration of justice by 

attempting to threaten, intimidate, or otherwise unlawfully influence a 

codefendant. U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(A) (U.S.

SENTENCING COMM’N 2015). A finding of obstruction of justice is a factual 

finding that is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 

F.3d 204, 208 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). A factual finding is not clearly 

erroneous if it “is plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Id. “[I]n 

determining whether an enhancement applies, a district court is permitted to 

draw reasonable inferences from the facts, and these inferences are factfindings reviewed for clear error as well.” United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 

287, 290 (5th Cir. 2006).

Zamora-Salazar first argues that the district court equated the PSR’s 

version of his alleged threat with Cruz-Becerra’s trial testimony and that the 

district court erred in doing so because these versions differ and trial testimony 

is more reliable.20 This argument is not supported by the record. The 

sentencing transcript reflects that the district court accepted defense counsel’s 

version of Cruz-Becerra’s trial testimony for purposes of argument.21 Defense 

 

20 According to the PSR summary, the Government submitted a Rule 404(b) notice 

which stated that “[o]n or about May 13, 2015, Zamora-Salazar and Cruz-Becerra were 

arraigned before Magistrate Judge Nancy Johnson. While in the holding cell at the U.S. 

Federal Courthouse, Zamora-Salazar threatened Cruz-Becerra by asking him whether he 

knew what happened to the family members of individuals who ‘talk.’” In contrast at the 

sentencing hearing, defense counsel asserted that Cruz-Becerra testified at trial that 

Zamora-Salazar said to him “Do you know what you’re doing? There could be problems later 

on.” 

21 During the sentencing hearing, the court and the parties acknowledged that they 

did not have a copy of the trial transcript, which prompted defense counsel to paraphrase

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

15

counsel argued that the trial testimony did not support the enhancement and 

the Government contended that the testimony did support the enhancement. 

In spite of accepting defense counsel’s paraphrased version of Cruz-Becerra’s 

trial testimony, the district court overruled the objection. 

Zamora-Salazar further argues that Cruz-Becerra’s trial testimony did 

not support the enhancement because his alleged statements to Cruz-Becerra 

were too vague to have constituted a threat. As noted, the district court 

accepted for purposes of argument that Cruz-Becerra testified that he spoke 

with Zamora-Salazar at the federal courthouse after they were arrested and 

that Zamora-Salazar asked him if he knew what he was doing and that “there 

could be problems later on.” The record as a whole plausibly reflects that 

Zamora-Salazar was aware prior to making these statements that CruzBecerra had cooperated with the Government by identifying him as a 

participant in the offense. See Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 208. The record 

evidence also reasonably supports the conclusion that Zamora-Salazar made 

these statements in order to threaten or intimidate Cruz-Becerra and to 

dissuade him from further cooperation. See Caldwell, 448 F.3d at 290. 

In light of this evidence, we conclude that the district court did not 

clearly err in imposing the obstruction of justice sentencing enhancement. See

U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 3C1.1 cmt. n.4(A) (U.S. SENTENCING 

COMM’N 2015); Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 208.

 

Cruz-Becerra’s trial testimony. The district court accepted that version but also commented 

that it “believe[d] that was the statement made in the presentence report . . . .” We disagree 

with Zamora-Salazar’s argument that the district court’s subsequent comment somehow 

resulted in its acceptance of the PSR version over the trial testimony version of the statement. 

At most, the district court indicated that it “believed” that the statement in the PSR was 

similar to the paraphrased trial testimony statement that it had just accepted for purposes 

of argument. This does not compel the conclusion, however, that the statement in the PSR 

was the statement the court relied on instead of the trial testimony. Rather, it suggests that 

the district court did not recall exactly what statement was reflected in the PSR. 

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 15 Date Filed: 06/28/2017
No. 16-20307

16

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant-Appellant Santos Alfonso ZamoraSalazar’s convictions and sentence are AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-20307 Document: 00514052237 Page: 16 Date Filed: 06/28/2017