USA V. ERICK SALAZAR, No. 15-50132 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED FEB 21 2017 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-50132 D.C. No. 3:13-cr-01442-MMA MEMORANDUM* v. ERICK HUMBERTO SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Erick Humberto Salazar appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 97-month sentence imposed following his jury-trial conviction for importation of methamphetamine and conspiracy to import methamphetamine, in * 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). violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Salazar contends that the district court erred by failing to analyze whether the facts he cited at sentencing entitled him to a minor role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. This argument is not supported by the record, which reflects that the court considered Salazar’s arguments in favor of a minor role adjustment and concluded that he had not carried his burden of demonstrating that he was entitled to the adjustment. See United States v. Cantrell, 433 F.3d 1269, 1282 (9th Cir. 2006) (defendant bears burden of proving entitlement to a minor role adjustment). This finding was not clearly erroneous, despite counsel’s characterization of Salazar as solely a “courier,” in light of the facts to which Salazar admitted in his proffer, which were discussed at the sentencing hearing. See id. (whether a defendant is a minor participant is a factual determination reviewed for clear error).1 Salazar also contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Salazar’s sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The low-end Guidelines sentence is 1 Several months after Salazar was sentenced, the United States Sentencing Commission amended the commentary to section 3B1.2(b). See United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519, 521 (9th Cir. 2016). We are satisfied that the district court did not clearly err under the revised commentary, which applies retroactively. See id. at 523. 2 15-50132 substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 3 15-50132
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.
