United States of America v. Angel Olvidio Escobar Saballos, a.k.a. Angel Ovido Escobar

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANGEL OLVIDIO ESCOBAR
SABALLOS, a.k.a. Angel Ovido Escobar,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10194
D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00089-PMP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013**
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Angel Olvidio Escobar Saballos appeals from the district court’s judgment
and challenges the 120-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea
conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
FILED
APR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

§ 846; and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291, and we affirm.
Escobar Saballos contends, and the government agrees, that the district court
procedurally erred by miscalculating his base offense level. We review for plain
error, see United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), and find
no grounds for reversal. The error had no effect on Escobar Saballos’s substantial
rights because the district court imposed the statutory mandatory minimum
sentence. See United States v. Dallman, 533 F.3d 755, 761-62 (9th Cir. 2008).
Escobar Saballos also contends that the district court erred by assigning him
two criminal history points under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d). We review for plain error,
see Hammons, 558 F.3d at 1103, and find none. The district court appropriately
relied on the presentence report’s undisputed statement regarding the expiration
date of Escobar Saballos’s state probation term in calculating his criminal history.
See United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1085 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Finally, Escobar Saballos contends that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to object to the Guidelines calculations and for failing to move for
12-10194 2

-- 2 of 3 --

retroactive termination of probation. We decline to address these contentions on
direct appeal. See United States v. Benford, 574 F.3d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
12-10194 3

-- 3 of 3 --