United States of America v. Daniel Joseph Salazar

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DANIEL JOSEPH SALAZAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-50106
D.C. No. 3:10-cr-03984-WQH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Joseph Salazar appeals from the 46-month sentence imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for importation of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
FILED
MAY 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-10126 2
affirm.
Salazar contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to
appreciate its discretion under Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), to
deviate from the advisory sentencing Guidelines based on policy differences with
the Guidelines. The record reflects that the district court was aware of its
discretion to deviate from the Guidelines, but chose not to do so. See United States
v. Henderson, 649 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[D]istrict courts are not
obligated to vary from the . . . Guidelines on policy grounds if they do not have, in
fact, a policy disagreement with them.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --