Message
×
loading..

United States v. Abelalrdo Lopez Salazar , 256 F. App'x 308 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                           [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FILED
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    NOV 28, 2007
    No. 07-12468                 THOMAS K. KAHN
    Non-Argument Calendar                CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 05-00388-CR-T-23-TBM
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ABELARDO LOPEZ SALAZAR,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    _________________________
    (November 28, 2007)
    Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Abelardo Lopez Salazar appeals his sentence of 135 months of
    imprisonment imposed following a plea of guilty to conspiracy to distribute and
    possession with intent to distribute cocaine while on board a vessel subject to the
    jurisdiction of the United States. See 46 U.S.C. app. §§ 1903(a), (g), (j) (1994); 18
    U.S.C § 2; 
    21 U.S.C. § 960
    (b)(1)(B)(ii). Salazar argues that he was entitled to a
    minor role reduction, see United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.2 (Nov.
    2005), and that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence when it failed
    to consider pertinent sentencing disparities. We affirm.
    Salazar first contends that the district court erred when it denied him a
    reduction based on his role in the offense, which Salazar contends was minor. We
    review the determination of a defendant’s role in an offense for clear error. United
    States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 
    175 F.3d 930
    , 937 (11th Cir. 1999). “[T]he district
    court’s ultimate determination of the defendant’s role in the offense should be
    informed by two principles discerned from the Guidelines: first, the defendant’s
    role in the relevant conduct for which [he] has been held accountable at sentencing,
    and, second, [his] role as compared to that of other participants in [his] relevant
    conduct.” 
    Id. at 940
    . “[A] defendant is not automatically entitled to a minor role
    adjustment merely because [he] was somewhat less culpable than the other
    discernable participants.” 
    Id. at 944
    . “So long as the basis of the trial court’s
    decision is supported by the record and does not involve a misapplication of a rule
    2
    of law, we believe that it will be rare for an appellate court to conclude that the
    sentencing court’s determination is clearly erroneous.” 
    Id. at 945
    .
    This appeal does not present the rare instance of clear error about the denial
    of a minor role reduction. The record establishes that Salazar, who was both a
    crew-member and navigator of the vessel, was not less culpable than most other
    participants, and the district court did not misapply the law. The district court did
    not clearly err when it denied Salazar a minor role reduction.
    Salazar also argues that his sentence is unreasonable. Salazar argues that the
    district court refused to consider the possible disparity between Salazar’s sentence
    and the potential sentences of Salazar’s Ecuadorian co-conspirators who were
    released to the Ecuadorian government for prosecution. Salazar’s argument fails.
    The transcript of the sentencing hearing establishes that the district court
    sentenced Salazar after careful consideration of Salazar’s arguments in favor of
    mitigation, the Guidelines range, and the statutory factors for sentencing, 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a). Section 3553(a)(6) requires a district court to consider sentence
    disparities only “among defendants with similar records who have been found
    guilty of similar conduct.” 
    Id.
     § 3553(a)(6). The district court correctly refused to
    consider potential disparities between Salazar’s sentence and the sentences of his
    co-conspirators imposed by courts in Ecuador. “The sole concern of section
    3
    3553(a)(6) is with sentencing disparities among federal defendants.” United States
    v. Clark, 
    434 F.3d 684
    , 687 (4th Cir. 2006) (emphasis omitted); United States v.
    Searcy, 
    132 F.3d 1421
     (11th Cir. 1998). The sentence Salazar received, which was
    at the low end of the advisory Guidelines range, was reasonable.
    Salazar’s sentence is
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-12468

Citation Numbers: 256 F. App'x 308

Judges: Marcus, Wilson, Pryor

Filed Date: 11/28/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024