United States v. Anselmo Salazar, No. 16-3055 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Bowman and Riley, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Anders case. The evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine and launder money; the district court's drug quantity calculations were supported by the trial evidence; sentence was not substantively unreasonable; claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should be brought in a Section 2255 proceeding.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 16-3055 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Anselmo Salazar lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph ____________ Submitted: June 5, 2017 Filed: June 8, 2017 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, RILEY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. A jury found Anselmo Salazar guilty of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956; and the district court1 entered judgment sentencing him to a total of 300 months in prison and five years of supervised release. On appeal, Salazar’s counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of certain evidence, and the Guidelines calculations underlying the sentence. In a pro se brief, Salazar mainly challenges the sufficiency of the evidence based on the lack of credibility of the cooperating witnesses. The evidence at trial showed that between 2009 and October 2011, Salazar and a coconspirator regularly supplied 50-pound quantities of marijuana and half-pound or pound quantities of methamphetamine, as well as small amounts of cocaine, to persons in St. Joseph, Missouri, including another coconspirator; and Salazar and his co-supplier received payments which they used to purchase more drugs for future transactions. The testimony of the coconspirators, whose credibility was for the jury, was corroborated by the testimony of law enforcement officials and was sufficient to show that one or more persons reached an agreement to distribute methamphetamine and launder money. See United States v. Pendleton, 832 F.3d 934, 947-48 (8th Cir. 2016) (conspiracy to commit money laundering); United States v. Aguilar-Portillo, 334 F.3d 744, 747-48 (8th Cir. 2003) (conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine). In addition, we find no abuse of discretion with regard to any of the district court’s evidentiary rulings. See United States v. Clark, 668 F.3d 568, 574-75 (8th Cir. 2012) (admission of Rule 404(b) evidence); United States v. Watson, 650 F.3d 1084, 1088 (8th Cir. 2011) (review of Confrontation Clause objections). As for the Salazar’s sentence, the district court’s drug-quantity determination was supported by the trial evidence and was not clearly erroneous, see United States v. Yellow Horse, 774 F.3d 493, 496 (8th Cir. 2014), and there is no indication in the 1 The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. -2- record that the sentence imposed by the district court was unreasonable, see United States v. Harlan, 815 F.3d 1100, 1107 (8th Cir. 2016); United States v. Zeigler, 463 F.3d 814 (8th Cir. 2006). To the extent that Salazar or his counsel raised an ineffective-assistance claim in this direct appeal, such matters are best left for proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005). Finally, after conducting an independent review under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), including consideration of the issues summarily mentioned in Salazar’s pro se brief, we have found no nonfrivolous issue for review. The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. ______________________________ -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
