United States v. Arturo Salazar, Jr. ( 2019 )

Case: 18-10111 Document: 00514905091 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-10111 United States Court of Appeals
Summary Calendar
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 5, 2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ARTURO SALAZAR, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:16-CR-72-1
Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Arturo Salazar, Jr., was arrested after a traffic stop led to the discovery
of 12 kilograms of methamphetamine and a pistol in his vehicle. He was
initially charged by indictment with one drug-trafficking offense. Shortly after
he filed a motion to suppress, the Government obtained a superseding
indictment that added one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
drug-trafficking offense. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 18-10111 Document: 00514905091 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/05/2019
No. 18-10111
Salazar pleaded guilty without a plea agreement to both counts of the
superseding indictment. He was sentenced to 188 months of imprisonment on
the drug charge and a consecutive 60 months on the firearm charge. In his
sole issue on appeal, Salazar argues for the first time that his 60-month
sentence on the firearm charge should be vacated because the superseding
indictment was the result of prosecutorial vindictiveness over his motion to
suppress.
Reviewing Salazar’s unpreserved claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness
for plain error, see United States v. Thomas, 991 F.2d 206, 208, 215-16 (5th Cir.
1993), we affirm. Salazar fails to demonstrate prosecutorial vindictiveness on
this record, let alone prosecutorial vindictiveness that is clear or obvious. See
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); United States v. Goodwin,
457 U.S. 368, 381 (1982); United States v. Saltzman, 537 F.3d 353, 361-63 (5th
Cir. 2008); United States v. Cooks, 52 F.3d 101, 105-06 (5th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2