Court Opinion

ID: 9386779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-13 17:00:41.270435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:08.476803
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 13 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-10151

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                1:10-cr-00055-JMS-1
 v.

GABRIEL RUIZ SALCEDO,                           MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Hawaii
                  J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 16, 2023**
                               Honolulu, Hawaii

Before: BEA, COLLINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

      Gabriel Ruiz Salcedo appeals the district court’s denial without prejudice of

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

by the First Step Act (“FSA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

vacate and remand for reconsideration in light of intervening case law.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Salcedo is currently serving two concurrent life sentences in federal prison for

two drug convictions. When Salcedo was sentenced in 2011, he was subject to a

mandatory minimum term of life imprisonment for each of his convictions. 21

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) (2010). In 2018, the FSA non-retroactively amended the

mandatory minimum provisions of § 841, and the parties agree that if Salcedo were

sentenced today, he would be subject to a mandatory minimum term of 15 years

rather than life imprisonment. The district court reasoned that, if sentencing Salcedo

today—considering the 15-year mandatory minimum, Salcedo’s underlying offense,

Salcedo’s criminal history, and other sentencing factors—the court would sentence

Salcedo to a term within a range of 262–327 months imprisonment (approximately

22–27 years).

      Salcedo argues that “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justify a sentence

reduction given the disparity between the sentence he received in 2011 and the

sentence he would receive today, among other factors. The district court denied

Salcedo’s motion for a reduction in sentence as “premature,” citing legal

“uncertainty” in the Ninth Circuit as to whether a district court can consider a

sentencing disparity created by a non-retroactive change to a mandatory sentencing

scheme when determining whether “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justify

granting a defendant’s motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(1)(A).

                                          2
      The district court decided this case before our decision in United States v.

Chen, 48 F.4th 1092, 1093 (9th Cir. 2022), which held that “a district court may

consider the First Step Act’s non-retroactive changes to sentencing law, in

combination with other factors particular to the individual defendant, when

determining whether extraordinary and compelling reasons exist for a sentence

reduction.” Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order denying Salcedo’s

motion to reduce sentence and remand to the district court to consider the motion in

light of intervening case law.

      VACATED AND REMANDED.

                                         3