IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10652

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEXANDER LEE SALAZAR,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-265-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alexander Lee Salazar appeals his 220-month sentence imposed 

following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute a controlled 

substance. Salazar argues that the district court clearly erred in failing to 

reduce his offense level for a mitigating role in the criminal activity. “Whether 

[a defendant] was a minor or minimal participant” under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 “is 

a factual determination that [this court] review[s] for clear error.” United 

 

* 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

May 24, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10652 Document: 00514971086 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/24/2019
No. 18-10652

2

States v. Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 324, 327 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it is 

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

and citation omitted). The defendant has the burden of demonstrating his 

entitlement to a minor or minimal role adjustment. United States v. Castro, 

843 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir. 2016). 

The evidence in the record reflects that Salazar admitted that on four 

occasions he illegally transported significant amounts of methamphetamine 

into different areas of the United States for distribution. The evidence also 

showed that he intended to continue to engage in the activity and that he would 

be obtaining methamphetamine from the initial source of the drugs. While 

Salazar may not have been an organizer or a decisionmaker with respect to the 

criminal activity, based on the totality of the circumstances, the district court’s 

determination that Salazar failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to a 

reduction of his offense level for a mitigating role was plausible and did not 

constitute clear error. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(C)); United States 

v. Bello-Sanchez, 872 F.3d 260, 264-65 (5th Cir. 2017); Gomez-Valle, 828 F.3d 

at 327.

Next, Salazar argues that the district court clearly erred in failing to 

reduce his offense level for the acceptance of responsibility. He contends that 

he pleaded guilty in a timely manner, he did not falsely deny relevant conduct, 

and he provided compelling explanations for most of his violations of his 

pretrial release. 

The district court’s decision to deny a reduction for acceptance of 

responsibility will be affirmed “unless it is without foundation, a standard of 

review more deferential than the clearly erroneous standard.” United States 

v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks 

 Case: 18-10652 Document: 00514971086 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/24/2019
No. 18-10652

3

and citation omitted). While entering a guilty plea and truthfully admitting 

criminal conduct “constitute significant evidence of acceptance of 

responsibility,” such “evidence may be outweighed by conduct of the defendant

that is inconsistent with such acceptance of responsibility.” U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, 

comment. (n.3). “The district court may properly deny a reduction for 

acceptance of responsibility for failure to refrain from criminal conduct while 

on pretrial release.” United States v. Rickett, 89 F.3d 224, 227 (5th Cir. 1996).

Salazar tested positive for the use of methamphetamine in violation of 

the conditions of his pretrial release. The district court’s decision to deny 

Salazar a reduction of his offense level for the acceptance of responsibility was 

not without foundation and was not clear error. See Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 

at 211. Salazar’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 18-10652 Document: 00514971086 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/24/2019