United States v. Angel Salinas-Mandujano
691 F. App'x 842
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendant Angel Salinas-Mandujano pleaded guilty to importing methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960.
- District court sentenced him to 96 months’ imprisonment and imposed a $500 fine.
- At sentencing the court denied a minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b).
- After sentencing, the Sentencing Commission issued Amendment 794 clarifying how minor-role adjustments are assessed (compare defendant to other participants; essential/indispensable role not dispositive; non‑exhaustive factors to consider). Amendment 794 is retroactive to direct appeals.
- Defendant challenged (1) denial of minor-role reduction, (2) applicability of the 20‑year statutory maximum absent admission/proof of drug type/quantity, and (3) imposition of the fine without explicit factor-by-factor recitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b) | Salinas-Mandujano argued he qualified for a minor-role adjustment and the court failed to apply Amendment 794’s comparative/factor-based guidance | Government argued denial was proper under pre-Amendment analysis and facts of the case | Court vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing so district court can apply Amendment 794 guidance |
| Statutory maximum (20 years) tied to knowledge of drug type/quantity | Salinas-Mandujano argued government never proved and he never admitted the type/quantity required for the 20-year max | Government relied on binding Ninth Circuit precedent allowing the statutory max absent such an admission | Argument foreclosed by Jefferson; court affirmed this aspect of sentencing |
| $500 fine imposed without explicit consideration of § 3572(a) and U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(d) | Salinas-Mandujano argued the district court failed to consider the statutory and guideline fine factors | Government argued the court considered ability to pay and was not required to list every factor; the fine is below Guidelines and reasonable | Court affirmed the fine—record shows consideration of ability to pay and fine is substantively reasonable |
| Other sentencing challenges | Salinas-Mandujano raised additional challenges to his custodial sentence | Government urged the court to reject or not reach them | Court declined to reach the remaining custodial-sentence challenges |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Quintero-Leyva, 823 F.3d 519 (9th Cir. 2016) (Amendment 794 retroactive; guidance on comparing defendant to other participants and factors for minor-role reduction)
- United States v. Jefferson, 791 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2015) (statutory maximum application not negated by lack of admission/proof of drug type/quantity)
- United States v. Hurtado, 760 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2014) (district court need not recite every factor when imposing fines; record can show consideration)
- United States v. Gasca-Ruiz, 852 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (overruling on other grounds cited in context)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (reasonableness review of sentences)
AFFIRMED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part for resentencing under Amendment 794.