United States of America v. Marlene Saldierna

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2886
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Marlene Saldierna
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
____________
Submitted: April 12, 2024
Filed: August 16, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, Chief Judge, SMITH and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Marlene Saldierna appeals the district court’s1 sentencing decision and
contends that her sentence is substantively unreasonable. Finding no abuse of
discretion, we affirm.
1 The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas.

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
I. Background
Police officers learned from a confidential informant (CI) that Saldierna was
distributing methamphetamine. Using this CI, officers arranged a series of controlled
purchases from Saldierna. During the first purchase, Saldierna informed the CI that
she would give them more methamphetamine. Saldierna sold methamphetamine to
the CI four more times. Two of those times, Saldierna fronted the CI with
methamphetamine and requested payment through Cash App.
During one sale, Saldierna contacted the CI and asked them to provide
transportation for the drug transaction. Once together, Saldierna instructed the CI to
take her to the United States courthouse in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Upon arriving at
the courthouse, Saldierna walked into the building to meet with her probation officer.
After the visit, Saldierna returned to the vehicle and told the CI that she failed a drug
test for alcohol, marijuana, methamphetamine, and pills. Saldierna also admitted that
she was avoiding her probation officer because she had been testing positive for
drugs. Saldierna and the CI then left, and Saldierna sold the CI methamphetamine.
A federal grand jury indicted Saldierna on three counts of distributing
methamphetamine. Saldierna entered a guilty plea to Count I of the indictment that
charged her with distributing methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). On August 2, 2023, the district court approved Saldierna’s
guilty plea and held a sentencing hearing. The court calculated Saldierna’s
Guidelines range as 100 to 125 months’ imprisonment and sentenced her to 120
months. Saldierna argues that her sentence is substantively unreasonable.
II. Discussion
“We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under a deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard and may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a
sentence within the advisory guidelines range.” United States v. Turner, 94 F.4th
739, 745 (8th Cir. 2024).

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
First, Saldierna argues that her “sentence is greater than necessary to satisfy
the sentencing goals of [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) given the disparity with similarly
situated defendants across the nation.” Appellant’s Br. at 20.
“When the argument is, as in this case, that the district court’s sentence created
unwarranted disparities with the sentences imposed on unrelated offenders by
different judges, there is no principled basis for an appellate court to say which
defendants received the appropriate sentence.” United States v. Palkowitsch,
36 F.4th 796, 801 (8th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). “[W]e decline to impose a procedural
requirement that a district [court] . . . must compare and contrast the defendant under
consideration with a similar offender who has been sentenced by another federal
[court].” Id. (third alteration in original) (quoting United States v. McElderry,
875 F.3d 863, 864 (8th Cir. 2017) (per curiam)). We often vacate and remand based
on sentencing disparities when there are “unusual circumstances.” United States v.
Soliz, 857 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 2017). And we generally view sentencing disparity
arguments as “a disagreement with the weighing of the § 3553(a) factors.”
McElderry, 875 F.3d at 865 (quoting Soliz, 857 F.3d at 783).
Here, the district court adequately considered Saldierna’s disparity argument.
To determine if the district court provided a sufficient explanation of “its reasons for
imposing a particular sentence, the context for [our] review is the entire sentencing
record.” Palkowitsch, 36 F.4th at 802 (quoting United States v. Mays, 993 F.3d 607,
619 (8th Cir. 2021)). “Where, as here, issues are raised in sentencing position papers
and at the sentencing hearing, a district court is presumed to consider them.” Id.
(cleaned up). During Saldierna’s sentencing hearing, the court mentioned that
Saldierna “briefed the national sentencing data, the approximate 87 to 88 months for
other defendants who fall into the same guideline range for this type of an offense.”
R. Doc. 41, at 30. The district court then said that it took “sentencing disparity
concerns and considerations into the mix here.” Id. at 31. On this record, the court’s
recitation of both its knowledge of Saldierna’s argument and its consideration of the
argument’s merits is adequate.

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
Second, Saldierna insists that the district court failed to consider the progress
that she made between her arrest and her sentencing hearing. During that time,
Saldierna received professional medical services that led to a psychological
diagnosis and medication options.
Saldierna is incorrect. The court considered facts related to her post-arrest/pre-
sentencing behavior. Saldierna’s attorney discussed Saldierna’s mental health
improvements with the court, and the court mentioned a desire to ensure that
Saldierna receive treatment for those issues. Id. at 30 (“I want to be sure that I do
what I can to make sure that you get some treatment for . . . those underlying mental
health issues while you’re incarcerated.”). “[B]ut the court then explained why it
believed the [120-month] sentence to be necessary . . . .” United States v. Long,
657 F. App’x 608, 610 (8th Cir. 2016) (unpublished per curiam). The district court
reasoned that Saldierna’s brazen act of meeting with her probation officer—in a
federal courthouse—while making a drug deal showed a lack of respect for the law.
The court also highlighted Saldierna’s prior conviction for importing
methamphetamine, multiple supervised-release violations involving
methamphetamine distribution, and prior assault on a U.S. Marshal. We hold that
the court adequately explained its sentence and considered Saldierna’s mental health
progress.
III. Conclusion
Saldierna fails to “show more than the fact that the district court disagreed
with [her] view of what weight ought to be accorded certain sentencing factors.”
United States v. Townsend, 617 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court.
______________________________

-- 4 of 4 --