2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
12-30-2003 

# U S A v . S alcedo P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-2592

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . S alc e do " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 20. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/20NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT No. 02-2592

________________ UNITED S TATES OF AMERI CA

v. NE LS ON SA LC ED O, J R.,

a/k/a Naz Ne lson Sal ced o, Jr., Appellant

________________________________ On A ppeal Fro m the U nited States D istrict Court

For the Dist

rict of New Jersey (D.C. Crim. No. 01-cr- 00373-1) Distric t Judg e: Ho nora ble Jer om e B. S iman dle

_______________________________________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

October 16, 2003 Be for e: S LO VI TE R, R OT H a nd S TA PL ET ON , Circu it Judges

(Fil ed: December 30, 2003)

_______________________

OPI NION

_______________________ RO TH , Circu it Judge Appellant

Nelson Salcedo, Jr. appeals t he judgment of s entence entered in t he2

United States District Court for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey . Salc edo pleaded gui lty to one count of conspiracyto posses s with i ntent to dist ribute in exces s of five ki lograms of cocaine and i n excess of 50 gr ams of cocaine ba se, i n violat ion of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1) and 21 U .S.C . § 84 6. T he D istrict Co urt se nten ced him to 1 50 m ont hs im priso nm ent. Salcedo raises t

hree is sues on appeal . Fir st, he argues t hat the Distri ct Court e rred in the f actualdetermi nations underlying it s decis ion not to applythe safe ty -valve provisi on of the Sent encing Guidel ines, U.S.S.G. § 5C1. 2. Second, Salcedo cl aims that th e D ist ric t C ou rt a ttri bu ted an in co rre ct q ua nt ity o f d ru gs to hi m at s en ten cin g. F in all y, Salcedo cl aims that

the Dist rict Court erred in decl ining to decrease his offens e level und er U .S.S .G. § 3E 1.1. F or th e rea son s tha t foll ow , we wil l aff irm. As we wri te fo r t

he pa rtie s, who ar e a war e o f the fa ct s u nde rl y in g thi s appe al , w e will s et fort

h only those fac ts ess entia l to our discuss ion. I n reviewing t he District Co urt’s fac tual f ind ing s, w e ap ply the def eren tial cle arly err one ous stan dar d. See United States v. Fuente s , 954 F .2d 15 1, 152 -55 (3 rd C ir. 1992 ). A d istrict cou rt does not co mm it clear e rror un less its fa ctual f inding s are co mp letely devo id of a credib le evid entiary ba sis or b ear n o ra tion al rel ation ship to th e su ppo rting data
. See United States v. Haut , 107 F.3d 21 3, 218 (3d Cir. 1997 ). By contrast, “[w]h ether the facts fo und by the district court warrant appl ication of a particul ar guidel ine provi sion i s a legalquesti on and is t o be reviewed de novo. ” See United States v. Wil son , 106 F.3d 1140, 11 42-43 (3 d Cir. 199 7) (quoti ng United States v. Partington , 21 F .3d 7 14, 7 17 ( 6th Cir . 199 4)).1 We note that Sal cedo submitted to thi s Court a copyof an affidavi t produced by

co-co nspira tor R onn ie Lo pez. In the af fidav it, Lop ez av ers tha t Salce do w as no t a manager or supervisor of the conspi racy . The affi davit pos t-dates the s entenci ng hearing by se ven months and was never presented to the Dist rict Court. I t is thus not

part of t he reco rd o n ap pea l. See Fed. R . App. P . 10(a).

2 Salcedo claims on a ppeal that, und er United States v. Fuentes , 954 F.2d 151, 154 (3d Cir. 2002), he di d not supervise Michel le Thomas because s he primari ly provided a buildin g fo r storag e. Th e claim lacks m erit. The record establish ed tha t M ichelle Thomas not onlyprovided a bui lding for stora ge, but

was sent on menialerrands , such as buyin g th e im plem ents nec essa ry to co ok p ow der coc aine into crac k co cain e. 3 We first con fron t Salce do’s c onten tion tha t the D istrict Co urt erred in failing to apply the safety-valve prov isions contained in U.S.S.G . § 5C1 .2. The D istrict Court denied Sal cedo’s r equest for a safety- valve re duction be cause it found that

Salcedo had
man aged and s uper vised Raf ael Pra do an d M ichelle T hom as. Th is factu al find ing is supporte d by the record. 1 At the sentencing hearing, t he prosecutor described the struc ture of t

he conspir acy wit

h which Salcedo was i nvolved and the roles of the various parti es. I saac River a (a.k. a. Is aac Burgos), Ronnie Lopez, and Sal cedo were in the top tier of the conspiracy . Below them were Jos e Lopez and Rafael Prado. Jose Lopez was the money man. Prado was the primary dist ribut or of the c rack cocai ne. At the bottom level of the conspiracywere people suc h as Michell e Thomas, Narly n Ramirez, and Carlos Merced. Everyt hing that Michelle Thomas di d was at the directi on of Rivera, Ronnie Lopez, and Sal cedo. Allthree of them sent Thomas on meni al err ands and used her res idence t o allow River a to cook powder cocai ne into c rack cocai ne. 2 Salcedo ’s counsel di d not dis agree with the Government’ s characterizations of Salcedo’ s role in the4

conspir acy. He did, however, clari fy t hat River a was at the top of the conspir acy and that Ronn ie Lope z an d Sa lc edo wer e no t a t t he “ to p t op. ” To t

he e xt ent th atSal ced o cl ai ms that hecould not ha ve been a manager or supervi sor becaus e he was not the overallleader of th e co nsp iracy, h is cla im la cks me rit. See United States v. King , 21 F.3d 1302, 1305 (3d Cir. 1994) (di stri ct court did not cl early

err i n finding t

hat a defendant

was a manager or superviso r even if co -conspirator w as the ma stermind of the plot). In any event, the safe ty -valve provisi on does not appl y i n view of the se ntence Sal ced o re ceiv ed. See United States v. Holman , 168 F.3 d 65 5, 66 0 (3 d C ir. 19 99)
. Section 5C1. 2 is desi gned to al low the court to “impose a

sentencein accor dance with the applicable gu idelines withou t regard to any statutory minimu m senten ce,” if the court finds that the de fendan t fulfills five criteria. In the present case, the statutory man datory minimum was 120 months. 21 U.S. C. § 841(a)( 1). The Dist rict Court dete rmined that Salcedo’s applic able gui delinerange was between 235 and 293 months . The District Court als o recogniz ed that , becausethe Government had fi led a moti on for a reduce d sentence pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), it had t he discretion to depart be low the 120
mo nth statu tory m inim um . Ultimat ely , the Distri ct Court s entenced Sal cedo to a 150
mo nth term of im prison men t. The record evide nce s how s that this d ecision wa s ma de in full consideration of the app licable guideline ran ge and withou t regard to the statutory minimum sentence . Thus, e ven if Sal cedo met the requirement s of the s afetyvalve pro visio n, an d he did not , the p rov ision s of sec tion 5C 1.2 w oul d be of n o he lp to him
.5

See id. at 66 1. Salce do n ext ch alleng es the d rug q uantity utilize d by the D istrict Co urt in calcu lating h is sente ncing guid eline ra nge. S alced o is no t in a po sition to m ake th is arg um ent. See United States v. Melendez , 55 F.3d 130, 136 (3d Cir. 1995). I n his pl ea agree men t, Salced o stipu lated th at the a mo unt o f con trolled su bstan ces attrib utable to him for sent encing purpos es was more than 1. 5 kilogr ams of cocaine ba se, and at least 15 kilogra ms b ut less th an 50 kilogra ms o f coc aine. A t the sen tencin g hea ring, S alced o did not con test th e qu antit y of d rug s attrib uted to h im. We accordingly conclude that the Dis tric t Co ur t p ro perlyattrib ut ed 1 .5 ki lo gr ams of c oca in e ba se , a nd a t l eas t 1 5 ki lo gr ams but less t han 50 k ilog ram s of coc aine to S alce do. See id. (rej ecti ng a defendant’ s attempt to disp ute a stip ulation regard ing the appr opriate senten cing ra nge) ; see als o United States v. Parker , 874 F .2d 17 4 (3d Cir. 19 89) (d eclinin g to allo w a defe ndan t to argu e fac ts which contradicted tho se to wh ich he agre ed in his plea ag reemen t). Fina lly, Salcedo argu es that th e D istrict Co urt erred in dec lining to decre ase h is offense le vel under U.S. S.G. § 3E1.1 becaus e of his pos t-offens e drug rehabi lit ation and acceptanc e of respons ibil ity . This argument is factual ly incorrect. Upon review of the record , it is clear tha t the D istrict Co urt aw arded Salce do a th ree lev el redu ction in his Total Offense Levelfor accept ance of respons ibil ity , which i s the maximum reduct ion
ava ilabl e un der U.S .S.G . § 3E 1.1. Salce do stip ulated to a B ase O ffen se Le vel of 38 in his plea agr eem ent. T he D istrict Co urt a wa rde d hi m a thre e lev el red uctio n un der U.S .S.G . §6

3E1.1., but adjus ted his offense le vel upward bythree poi nts under U.S.S.G. § 3B1. 1 for his role as a m anager o r supervisor in a d rug con spiracy that involved five or more parti cipant s. As the Distri ct Court properlyconcluded, the res ulti ng Total Offense Level
wa s 38
. For the r easons set

forth above , we will affirm the judgment of s entence.TO THE C LERK: Please fi le theforegoing opi nion.

/s/ Jane R. Roth Circuit

Judge