United States vs. Salazar, No. 06-4039 (10th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT March 14, 2007 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FORTINO CASTILLO-SALAZAR, a/k/a Julio Cesarmoreno Sanchez, a/k/a Julio M oreno, a/k/a Fortino Catillo-Salazar, No. 06-4039 (D.C. No. 2:04-CR-525-DB) (D. Utah) Defendant - Appellant. OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT * Before KELLY, M U RPH Y, and O BRIEN, Circuit Judges. ** Defendant-Appellant Fortino Castillo-Salazar appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in failing to sentence him using the safety valve in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2. On November 17, 2005, M r. Castillo pled guilty to one count * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A ). However, he refused to truthfully provide[] to the Government all information and evidence [he] has concerning the offense so that he could qualify for a safety valve reduction in his sentencing range. See U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5). The district court sentenced M r. Castillo to 120 months of imprisonment followed by 24 months of supervised release. M r. Castillo timely moved to reopen his sentencing hearing so that he could provide information and qualify for the safety valve. Thereafter, he again chose not to provide information. Defense counsel informed the district court of his client s decision, and the court entered a final judgment on January 26, 2006. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), M r. Castillo s counsel informs us that M r. Castillo did not qualify for the safety valve because of his refusal to truthfully provide[] to the Government all information and evidence [he] has concerning the offense . . . . U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5). This, as counsel notes, is a prerequisite that a defendant must satisfy before he can be eligible for the safety valve. See id. M r. Castillo did not respond to his attorney s Anders brief; the government likewise determined that no response was necessary. Having reviewed the record, we detect no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. A ccordingly, we will allow M r. Castillo s counsel to withdraw and DISM ISS this appeal. See United States v. Calderon, 428 F.3d 928, 929-30 (10th Cir. 2005). Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge -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.
