# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 37 46

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ram iro Sal azar -Ale m an

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - F t. Sm it h

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 27 , 20 13 Fil ed : Dec em

be r 23 , 20 13

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, SMITH, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

R a mi r o Sal azar -Ale m an pl ed gu il ty to ai di ng an d ab et ti ng th e po ss es si on of

m or e th an 50 0 gr am s of m et ha m ph et am in e w i t h i n te nt to di st rib ut e, in vi ol at io n of
21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A)(v ii i), an d 18 U.S.C. § 2. Sal azar -Ale m an ob jecte d

to th e p re-s en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt, s eek in g a red uc ti on in hi s of fen se lev el for

a m it ig at in g ro le pu rs ua nt to Uni te d St at es Sen t e n c i n g Gui de li ne s Man ua l§ 3B 1.2 (2 01 1)

. The di st ric t cou rt de ni ed th is ob jecti on an d im

po se d a se nt en ce of 1
10 8 m on th s, th e lo wes t en d of th e cal cu la te d gu id el in es ran ge

. Sal azar -Ale m an fil ed

a m ot io n to va cat e hi s se nt en ce un de r 28 U.S.C. § 22 55
, as se rti ng hi s tri al co un se l

was in effe ct iv e fo r fai lu re to fil e a n ot ic e of ap pe al as req ue st ed

. The di st ric t co ur t
gr an te d th e m ot io n an d re-s en te nc ed Sal azar -Ale m an

. N o w on ap pe al
, Sal azar-A le m an co nte nds his se nte nc e is bot h pr oc ed ur al ly un so un d an d su bs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le

. He arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in refu si ng to ap pl y a m it ig at in g ro le red uc ti on an d fai le d to gi v e p ro pe r weig ht to th e 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) se nt en ci ng fact or s. We affir m

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

In Decem be r 20 10
, Dru g Enfo rce men t Adm in is tra ti on (DEA) ag en ts were

co nd uc ti ng su rv ei ll an ce on a su sp ect ed “ st as h ho us e” fo r m et ha m ph et ami n e w h en
ag en ts ob se rv ed a ve hi cl e le av e th e ga rag e an d ret ur n se ve ral ti m es

. On th e la st tri p, th e Sh eri ff’s Offi ce ex ecu te d a tra ffi c st op

. Sal azar -Ale m an was dr iv in g th e ve hi cl e

acco m pa ni ed by a pa ss en ge r. Dur in g th e co ur se of a co ns en su al se arch of th e ve hi cl e, th e of fic ers di sc ov ered 83 1.7 gr am s of meth am ph et am in e hi dd en in th e tru nk

. Sal azar -Ale m an st at es th at he was un pa id fo r hi s se rv ic es , bu t kn ew dr ug s were be in g lo ad ed in t o t h e ve hi cl e. He was in di ct ed fo r co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e

m et ha m ph et am in e as w e l l as ai di ng an d ab et ti ng th e po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e m et ha m

ph et am in e. Sal azar -Ale m an pl ed gu il ty to th e ai di ng an d ab et ti ng ch arg e, an d t he co ns pi racy cou nt was d is m is se d a fte r se nt en ci ng

.

The Hon or ab le Ro be rt T. Dawso n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju d g e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-II . Dis cus si on

In rev ie win g th e di st ric t co ur t’s se n t en ce, “ [w]e ‘m us t fir st en su re th at th e di st ric t co ur t co m

m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r.’” Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ti ng Gall v. Uni te d St at es , 55 2 U.S.
38
, 51 (2 00 7) ). W e th en co ns id er whe th er th e se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y reas on ab le

. Id

.

A. Miti ga tin g Ro le Reduct io n

Sal azar -Ale m an fir st arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr o c ed ur al erro r by de nyin g hi m a m it ig at in g ro le red uc ti o n pu rs ua nt to § 3B 1.2 of th e se nt en ci ng
gu id el in es

. Sect io n 3B 1.2 pr ov id es fo r a two - to fo ur -le ve l red uc ti on in a de fen da nt ’s of fen se le ve l whe n th e de fen da nt “ pl ay s a pa rt in co m m it ti ng th e of

fen se th at m ak es hi m su bs ta nt ia ll y le ss cu lp ab le .” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.2
, cm t. n.3 (A). The di st ric t co ur t’s
gr an t or d e n ia l of a m it ig at in g ro le red uc ti on is a fact ua l fin di ng rev ie wed fo r cl ear

erro r. Uni te d St a t es v. Ell is
, 89 0 F.2 d 10 40
, 10 41 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 ); se e al so Uni te d
St at es v. You ng , 68 9 F.3 d 94 1, 94 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), cert

. de n ie d, 13 3 S. Ct

. 90 2 (2 01 3)
, an d cert

. de ni ed
, 13 3 S. Ct

. 14 75 (2 01 3)

. The de fen da nt be ars th e bu rd en of

pr ov in g th at he is en ti tl ed to th is red uc ti on

. Uni te d St at es v. Ch at m an , 11 9 F.3 d
13 35 , 13 41 (8t h C ir. 1 99 7) ; s ee al so You ng , 68 9 F .3d at 9 46

.

As th e se nt en ci ng gu id el in es m ak e c l e a r , a de fen da nt ’s en ti tl em en t to a

m it ig at in g ro le red uc ti on req ui res a co m pa rat iv e an al y si s: “ each pa rti ci pa nt ’s act io ns sh ou ld be co m

pa red ag ai ns t th e ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s, an d each pa rti ci pa nt ’s cu lp ab il it y sh ou ld be ev a lu at ed in rel at io n to th e el em en ts of th e of fen se .” Uni te d St at es v. Dean s, 59 0 F.3 d 90 7, 90 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Sal azar -Ale m an ne ve r

co m pa res hi s cu lp ab il it y to th at of hi s co -d efen da nt s, su ch as th e ve hi cl e’s pa ss en ge r

or ot he rs in vo lv ed wit h th e st as h ho us e. And th e reco rd is si m il arl y la ck in g in th es e de ta il s. See Uni te d St at es v. Bu en o, 44 3 F.3 d 10 17
, 10 22 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (rev ers in g

-3

-a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of a red uc ti on whe n de fen da nt “ of fere d no ev id en ce of t h e

re l a ti ve cu lp ab il it ie s of ot he r pa rti ci pa nt s in th e of fen se an d th eref

or e di d no t carr y hi s b ur de n o f pr ov in g t ha t h e was eli gi bl e fo r th e red uc ti on ”).

In st ead of th is co m

pa ris on , Sal azar -Ale m an em ph as iz es hi s in vo lv em en t was li m it ed to be in g a co ur ie r in a si ng le tra ns act io n. Eve n if we acce pt th es e as se rti on s

as tru e, th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it ha s ne ve r fo un d so m eo ne ’s ro le as a co ur ie r in an d of it se lf

su ffi ci en t to warra nt a m it ig at in g ro le red uc ti on

. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Pru ne da
, 51 8 F.3 d 59 7, 60 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (rejec ti ng an arg um en t fo r a red uc ti on ba se d on th e de fen da nt ’s ro le as a co ur ie r be cau se “ tra ns po rta ti on of th e dr ug s is ‘a ne ces sa ry pa rt of il le ga l dr ug di st rib ut io n’”) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti ne z, 1 6 8 F.3 d 10 43
, 10 48 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 )). Si m il arl y , a de fen da nt ’s i nv ol ve m en t in a si ng le tra ns act io n do es no t co m

pe l a fin di ng of cl ear erro r. S e e U n i t ed St at es v. Alv erez , 23 5 F.3 d
10 86 , 1 0 9 0

– 9 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (u ph ol di ng th e de ni al of a m it ig at in g ro le red uc ti on fo r th e dr iv er in a si ng le tra ns act io n)

. Bas ed on th e reco rd be fo re us , Sal azar -Ale m an ha s fai le d to m eet hi s bu rd en , an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s d e n ia l of a m it ig at in g ro le red uc ti on was n ot cle ar er ro r.

B. 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a ) Sent enci ng Fact or s

Sal azar

- A l e m an ne xt arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d pr oc ed ur al erro r in fai li ng t o pr op erl y co ns id er al l th e se nt en ci ng fact or s in 18 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a). W e

rev ie w se nt en ces “ whe th er in si de or ou ts id e t h e Gui de li ne s ran ge ” un de r “ a de fere nt ia l ab us e-o f-d is cret io n st an da rd .” Fe em st er, 57 2 F.3 d at 46 1 (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

.

Mo re sp eci fic al ly, “ [w]e do no t req ui re a di st ric t co ur t to pr ov id e a m ech an ic al reci ta ti on of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s

. . . . Rat he r, it si m pl y m u s t b e cl ear fro m th e

reco rd th at th e di st ric t co ur t act ua ll y co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s in de te rm in in g th e se nt en ce.” Id

. at 46 1 (q uo ta ti on om it te d) ; se e al so Ri ta v. Uni te d St at es , 55 1 U.S.

-4

-33 8, 35 8– 59 (2 00 7) (ack no wled gi ng t h a t th e jud ge co ul d ha ve sa id m or e ab ou t

co ns i d e r i n g t h e se nt en ci ng fact or s, bu t th e reco rd m ad e cl ear he “ li st en ed to each

arg um en t” fo r a be lo w-g ui de li ne s se nt en ce). The reco rd in th is cas e m ak es cl ear th at th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. The di st ric t co ur t ex pr es sl y st at ed
,

“ I’ve [] rev ie wed al l of th os e se nt en ci ng fact or s se t ou t in § 35 53 (a)” an d sp eci fic al ly in vi te d Sal azar -Ale m an to un de rs co re an y of th e fact or s fo r pa rti cu la r co ns id erat io n. The re is no ev id en ce in th e reco rd to su g g e s t th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t co ns id er th e
arg um en ts Sal azar -Ale m an pre se nt ed , and we fin d n o p ro ced ur al erro r.

C. Subs ta nti ve Reas on ab le nes s

Fi na ll y , S al a zar- Alem an arg ue s hi s se nt en ce was su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y weig he d th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s. The su bs ta nt iv e

reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce is al so rev ie wed fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Feem st er, 57 2
F.3 d at 46 1 (ci ti ng Gall
, 55 2 U.S. at 51 ). A di st ric t co ur t ab us es it s di sc ret io n whe n it “ (1 ) fai ls to co ns id er a rel ev an t fact or th at sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed si gn ifi can t weig ht ; (2 ) gi ve s si gn ifi can t weig ht to an im pr op er or irr el ev an t fact or ; or (3 ) co ns id ers on ly th e ap pr o p r i a t e fact or s bu t in weig hi ng th os e fact or s co m m it s a cl ear erro r of jud gm en t.” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

Thi s de f e r e nt ia l st an da rd of rev ie w is co up le d wit h a di st ric t co ur t’s wid e di sc ret io n. The di st ric t co ur t “ ha s su bs ta nt ia l la ti tu de to de te rm in e ho w m uc h weig ht

to gi ve th e v ari ou s fa ct or s un de r § 35 53 (a).” Uni te d St at es v. Ru el as -Me nd ez, 55 6
F.3 d 65 5, 65 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Gas away, 68 4 F.3 d 80 4, 80 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ It was wit hi n th e co ur t’s di sc ret io n to de te rm in e wha t weig ht to gi ve each fact or in th e de te rm in at io n of [th e de fen da nt ’s] se nt en ce.”)

. Here, th e di st ri c t

co ur t ex pr es sl y

st at ed it ha d ta ke n in to acco un t al l § 35 53 (a) fact or s an d im po se d a

se nt en ce at th e bo tt om of th e cal cu la te d gu id el in es ran ge

. Sal azar -Ale m an arg ue s that if th e di st ric t co ur t ha d pr op erl y weig he d th e fact or s, th e co ur t “ wou ld ha ve real iz ed th at on ly th e se rio us [n es s] of th e of fen se , du e to th e dr ug qu an ti ty, su pp or te d a wit hi n

-5

-gu id el in es ran ge se nt en ce.” The di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d th at Sal azar -Ale m an is

m arri ed an d ha s cl os e fam il y ti es , ha s at te nd ed Narco ti cs Ano nym ou s an d co nt in ui ng ed uc at io n cl as se s whi le in carc erat ed
, an d ha s a li m it ed cri m in al hi st or y

. The di st ric t

co ur t al so reco m

m en de d pa rti ci pa ti on in dr ug tre at m en t as pa rt of hi s se nt en ci ng , an d

ur ge d Sal azar -Ale m an to fu rth er hi s ed uc at io n

. Tho ug h 10 8 m on th s is a le ng th y

se nt en ce, we ca nn ot say the di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s d is cret io n.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th es e rea so ns , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-