United States of America v. Robert Michael Salazar

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROBERT MICHAEL SALAZAR,
Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 16-50351
16-50352
D.C. Nos. 2:97-cr-00009-PA
2:07-cr-00619-PA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Robert Michael Salazar appeals from the
district court’s judgment and challenges the 20-month concurrent sentences
imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-50351 & 16-50352
Salazar contends that the district court procedurally erred by relying on facts
not supported by the record in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence, and by
failing to explain the sentence adequately. We review for plain error, see United
States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude
that there is none. The record does not support Salazar’s argument that when
imposing the sentence, the district court relied on an assumption that Salazar was
driving under the influence. Rather, the record reflects that the district court
considered Salazar’s history of drug use, which was well documented in the
record, and sufficiently explained its determination that an above-Guidelines
sentence was warranted. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.
2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --