United States v. Jaritza Salabarria
21-3004
| 6th Cir. | Dec 2, 2021Background
- Salabarria was released on bond after 2019 federal drug charges (one conspiracy and two distribution counts) and pleaded guilty to those counts.
- Release conditions prohibited narcotics possession, required appearance, and forbade violating law; she failed to appear on a summons and was arrested multiple times while on release.
- While on bond she possessed 4.92 grams of heroin/fentanyl and pleaded guilty in 2020 to possession with intent to distribute (a new federal offense).
- At combined sentencing the parties agreed the combined base offense level was 14; the court applied a three-level §3C1.3 enhancement for committing an offense while on release, producing offense level 17.
- The sole dispute was entitlement to a two-level reduction under U.S.S.G. §3E1.1 for acceptance of responsibility; the district court denied the reduction and imposed concurrent 28-month terms.
- Salabarria appealed, arguing the denial of the §3E1.1 reduction rendered her sentence procedurally unreasonable; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Salabarria was entitled to a §3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction for offenses grouped for sentencing | Salabarria: She pleaded guilty and admitted all conduct, so she met §3E1.1 requirements and should receive a two-level reduction | Government: Her post-plea conduct — multiple arrests while on release, failure to self-surrender after a summons, and committing a new federal drug offense while on bond — outweighs guilty plea and admissions, so no reduction | The court affirmed denial: guilty plea/admissions insufficient because her conduct while on release (including new drug offense and failure to appear) was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility, and for grouped counts acceptance must cover all offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for procedural-reasonableness review)
- United States v. Thomas, 933 F.3d 605 (6th Cir. 2019) (discussed standards for reviewing §3E1.1 denials)
- United States v. Webb, 335 F.3d 534 (6th Cir. 2003) (guilty plea does not entitle defendant to §3E1.1 adjustment as a matter of right)
- United States v. Hollis, 823 F.3d 1045 (6th Cir. 2016) (two-step inquiry for §3E1.1: evidence of acceptance, then whether inconsistent conduct outweighs it)
- United States v. Denson, 728 F.3d 603 (6th Cir. 2013) (burden on defendant to prove entitlement to §3E1.1 by preponderance)
- United States v. Trevino, 7 F.4th 414 (6th Cir. 2021) (requirement that acceptance cover each offense when counts are grouped)
- United States v. Chambers, 195 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 1999) (procedure for grouping counts and applying §3E1.1 to combined offense level)
- United States v. Lassiter, 929 F.2d 267 (6th Cir. 1991) (possession/sale of drugs while on release undermines acceptance of responsibility)
- United States v. Maxwell, [citation="75 F. App'x 436"] (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming denial of §3E1.1 when defendant possessed drugs for resale while on bond)