United States v. Salazar

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FEB 12 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 02-6402
(D. Ct. No. 02-CR-60-L)
JOHN VERA SALAZAR, III, (W.D. Okla.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, McKAY and McCONNELL, Circuit
Judges.
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)(2); 10th
Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
A federal grand jury indicted John Vera Salazar, III, on three counts
relating to the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine. Mr. Salazar
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
pleaded guilty to all charges. Based on information included in the Presentence
Investigation Report, the district court, over Mr. Salazar’s objection, enhanced
Mr. Salazar’s base offense level by six levels, finding that his methamphetamine-
related actions created a substantial risk of harm to the life of his ten-year-old
nephew. Following this ruling, the district court sentenced Mr. Salazar to three
210-month sentences, to run concurrently. He filed timely notice of appeal. We
take jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(2) and
AFFIRM. 1
I. Background
This appeal represents the culmination of an extended investigation into the
Salazar family’s methamphetamine-related activities. On at least four occasions,
agents from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) searched the Salazar’s rural
compound, each time finding extensive evidence of methamphetamine production.
During these searches, BIA officers discovered numerous dangerous items strewn
about, such as methamphetamine; hazardous chemicals, including anhydrous
1
Under 10th Cir. R. App. P. 10.1, the appellant must submit copies of “all
portions of the transcript necessary to give the court a complete and accurate
record of the proceedings related to the issues on appeal.” 10th Cir. R. App. P.
10.1(A)(1). The appellee may supplement that submission with other portions of
the record if he “considers it necessary.” Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(3)(B). We note
that both parties cited to the transcript in their briefs and, yet, neither supplied a
copy of those portions of the transcript on appeal. We trust that Mr. White and
Assistant United States Attorney Sengel will follow this requirement more closely
in their future submissions to this court.
-2-
ammonia and acid; and flammable and explosive substances, 2
including lithium.
During one search, agents discovered methamphetamine in a bedroom filled with
children’s toys, videos, and stuffed animals.
Furthermore, the record reveals troubling facts regarding Mr. Salazar’s
nephew, who lived at various residences in the compound around the time of Mr.
Salazar’s arrest. The nephew stated that he did not like living at the compound
because the fumes made his nose itch. He further stated that he preferred living
in one of the residences at the compound because it had a door that he could shut
to keep the fumes out, unlike when he lived at the other residence where his room
lacked a door and the fumes made him dizzy. Indeed, Mr. Salazar admitted in a
brief to the district court that his nephew “was exposed to noxious fumes
intermittently.” Unsurprisingly then, the Presentence Investigation Report
includes troubling observations regarding the nephew’s mental and physical
health.
On appeal, Mr. Salazar first argues that the district court erred by
enhancing his sentence under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5)(C), which provides for a
six-level enhancement for methamphetamine production that creates “a substantial
risk of harm to the life of a minor or incompetent.” U.S.S.G § 2D1.1(b)(5)(C).
2
Agents conducted at least one of the searches in response to a report of
an explosion at the Salazar compound.
-3-
Mr. Salazar argues that there is insufficient evidence regarding when his nephew
lived at the compound and whether, during that time, he was ever directly exposed
to any of the dangerous chemicals at the compound. He further urges that
“Department of Human Services reports contradict the finding that the minor
child’s life was in substantial risk of harm.”
In the alternative, Mr. Salazar argues that the district court cannot enhance
his base offense level under § 2D1.1(b)(5)(C) because the court cannot add
“additional points on a defendant for acts which have already been accounted
for.” To this end, he argues that it would be “double-counting” to enhance his
base offense level under § 2D1.1(b)(5)(C) because all manufacturing of
methamphetamine is inherently dangerous. We address these arguments seriatim.
II. Discussion
A. Sentence Enhancement Under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5)(C)
Mr. Salazar first argues that the district court erred in enhancing his base
offense level under § 2D1.1(b)(5)(C) because there is insufficient evidence
supporting the enhancement. “We review the district court’s interpretation and
application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear
error.” United States v. Dillon , 351 F.3d 1315, 1318 (10th Cir. 2003).
Section 2D1.1(b)(5)(C) requires a district court to enhance a defendant’s
sentence if his offense (1) “involved the manufacture of . . . methamphetamine”
-4-
and (2) “created a substantial risk of harm to the life of a minor.” U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(b)(5)(C). Under prong 2, therefore, a district court must first make
findings as to the presence of a minor or minors. United States v. Florence , 333
F.3d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir. 2003). Here, the district court unquestionably
satisfied this requirement by finding that Mr. Salazar’s nephew lived at the
compound during much of the time that Mr. Salazar engaged in
methamphetamine-related activities; and we find that record evidence supports the
district court’s conclusion.
Next, the district court must find that the drug activities created a
“substantial” risk to the life or lives of the identified minor or minors. U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(b)(5)(C)(ii). Application Note 20 to § 2D1.1 provides the following
factors that a court must consider when determining this requirement:
(i) The quantity of any chemicals or hazardous or toxic substances
found at the laboratory, and the manner in which the chemicals
or substances were stored.
(ii) The manner in which the hazardous or toxic substances were
disposed, and the likelihood of release into the environment of
hazardous or toxic substances.
(iii) The duration of the offense, and the extent of the
manufacturing operation.
(iv) The location of the laboratory (e.g., whether the laboratory is
located in a residential neighborhood or a remote area) and the
number of human lives placed at substantial risk.
U.S.S.G § 2D1.1, Application Note 20(A).
-5-
In a thorough and well-reasoned order, the district court considered these
factors, ultimately concluding that “[t]he government has clearly met its burden in
this case.” After reviewing the record on appeal and the district court’s order, we
find that the district court’s finding of facts were not clearly erroneous and that
the district court properly applied § 2D1.1(b)(5)(C). As such, we affirm the
district court’s enhancement.
B. “Double-Counting”
Mr. Salazar next argues that the district court cannot enhance his base
offense level under § 2D1.1(b)(5)(C) because the guidelines have already taken
into account the “dangerousness” of manufacturing methamphetamine, thereby
making an enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(5)(C) amount to impermissible
“double-counting.”
When considering challenges of double-counting, we have generally
concluded that
[i]f . . . it is possible to be sentenced under a particular offense
guideline without having engaged in a certain sort of behavior, such
behavior may be used to enhance the offense level, for in this
situation, the guideline’s base offense level will not necessarily have
been set to capture the full extent of the wrongfulness of such
behavior. United States v. Duran , 127 F.3d 911, 917 (10th Cir.
1997).
Here, it is undoubtedly possible to be sentenced under § 2D1.1 for
manufacturing, importing, exporting, or trafficking drugs, without “creat[ing] a
-6-
substantial risk of harm to the life of a minor.” U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5)(C). As
such, we find that it was not impermissible double-counting to enhance Mr.
Salazar’s sentence under that provision.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT,
Deanell Reece Tacha
Chief Circuit Judge
-7-