US v. Jose Salgado, No. 10-5096 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-5096 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOSE HERRERA SALGADO, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:09-cr-00130-RJC-2) Submitted: June 21, 2011 Decided: July 8, 2011 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Haakon Thorsen, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Edward R. Ryan, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jose Herrera Salgado appeals his conviction and sentence of 118 months in prison and five years of supervised release after he pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (2006). Salgado s attorney California, opinion, 386 there has filed U.S. are 738 no a brief meritorious to asserting, (1967), pursuant in grounds for Anders v. counsel s appeal, but raising the issue of whether the district court erred in failing to adequately depart for Salgado s substantial assistance. Salgado was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We dismiss the appeal in part, and we affirm the district court s judgment. We review discretion standard. (2007). that sentence under a deferential abuse-of- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 The first step in this review requires us to ensure the error, a district such as court committed improperly no calculating significant the procedural Guidelines range, failing to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2006) factors, or failing to adequately explain the sentence. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009). procedurally reasonable, we then 2 United States v. If the sentence is consider the substantive reasonableness of the sentence imposed, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. In calculate the opportunity the Guidelines to appropriate. Cir. sentencing, Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. argue district range for and whatever court give should the first parties sentence they an deem United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th 2007). The district court should then consider the relevant § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by either party. Id. When rendering a sentence, the district court must make and place on the record an individualized assessment based on the particular facts of the case. Carter, 564 F.3d at 328, 330. In explaining the chosen sentence, the sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). While a district court must consider the statutory factors and explain its sentence, it need not explicitly discuss every factor on the record. reference § 3553(a) or United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). After determining Salgado s Guidelines range was 135 to 168 months based on a total offense level of thirty-three and criminal history category I, the 3 district court granted the Government s motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2006); USSG § 5K1.1 to reduce Salgado s sentence based on his substantial assistance. prison. The district court sentenced him to 118 months in On appeal, Salgado challenges district court s downward departure. the extent of the However, this decision is not reviewable and we dismiss this portion of the appeal. See United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal in part, and we affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform his or her client, in writing, of his or her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART 4
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.
