UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

IGNACIO SALCIDO, JR., 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 20-2108 

(D.C. No. 2:16-CR-04290-KG-1) 

(D. N.M.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Ignacio Salcido, Jr., proceeding pro se1

, appeals the district court’s denial of 

his motion to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by 

the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. Exercising 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 Because Mr. Salcido proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments liberally, 

but we “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing 

arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 

425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

June 4, 2021

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we agree with the district court that Mr. Salcido 

was not entitled to relief, but we remand with instructions to the district court to 

vacate the order denying the motion and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A federal grand jury in the District of New Mexico indicted Mr. Salcido for 

transporting a minor in interstate and foreign commerce with the intent to engage in 

criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a). Mr. Salcido pled guilty. 

The district court sentenced him to 120 months in prison. He is currently serving his 

sentence at the Federal Medical Center in Fort Worth, Texas (“FMC Fort Worth”). 

When Mr. Salcido attempted to appeal, this court enforced the appeal waiver in his 

plea agreement and dismissed the appeal. See United States v. Salcido, 783 F. App’x 

800, 804 (10th Cir. 2019). 

Mr. Salcido filed an emergency motion to reduce sentence and for 

compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). He argued that 

extraordinary and compelling reasons justified his early release, including (1) the 

presence of COVID-19 at FMC Fort Worth and (2) his elderly mother’s health care 

needs. He did not allege he had exhausted his administrative remedies. The 

Government raised Mr. Salcido’s failure to exhaust as a reason to deny the motion. It 

further argued Mr. Salcido had not presented sufficient reasons for compassionate 

release and that he still posed a significant danger to community safety. The district 

court agreed with the Government on both grounds. It therefore denied the motion as 
3 

procedurally defective and for failure to allege extraordinary and compelling reasons 

justifying release. 

II. DISCUSSION 

Mr. Salcido presents no argument challenging the district court’s 

determination that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies. His failure to 

exhaust was fatal to his motion. The district court “may not modify a term of 

imprisonment once it has been imposed” unless the Director of the Bureau of Prisons 

moves for sentence modification on a defendant’s behalf (which did not occur here) 

or unless the defendant so moves and “has fully exhausted all administrative rights to 

appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring” such a motion. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(a). The district court therefore correctly concluded Mr. Salcido’s 

motion was procedurally defective. 

This procedural defect meant the district court lacked the authority to review 

Mr. Salcido’s request, so dismissal rather than denial of the motion was the 

appropriate disposition. See United States v. White, 765 F.3d 1240, 1250 (10th Cir. 

2014). 

III. CONCLUSION 

We vacate the order denying Mr. Salcido’s motion and remand with 

instructions to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Mr. Salcido’s motion for 

appointment of counsel. We also deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis 

because he has not advanced “a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts 
4 

in support of the issues raised on appeal.” DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 

505 (10th Cir. 1991). 

Entered for the Court 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. 

Circuit Judge