United States v. Salcido-Gonzalez

── United States v. Salcido-Gonzalez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-4015 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 29, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 25-4015 (D.C. No. 4:23-CR-00049-AMA-1) RENE SALCIDO-GONZALEZ, (D. Utah) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HARTZ, EID, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. ** _________________________________ If after examining a case, counsel determines that any appeal would be wholly frivolous, we may allow counsel to withdraw. But before we do, counsel must present a brief to the client and to us indicating any potential appealable issues. If, after a full examination of the record, we conclude that the appeal is frivolous, we may grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and may dismiss the appeal. * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined ** unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.  Appellate Case: 25-4015 Document: 38-1 Date Filed: 04/29/2026 Page: 2 Here, counsel examined the case and filed a brief. After fully examining the record and considering the brief, we conclude no non-frivolous issues exist upon which Defendant may appeal. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. I. Early one morning, Defendant Rene Salcido-Gonzalez drove a Toyota truck eastbound on Interstate 70 in Utah. He passed Deputy Mike Miller, who sat in his marked patrol car in the median. Miller didn’t clock Defendant’s speed, but he estimated Defendant was driving the speed limit, about 80 miles per hour. But, Defendant slowed to 65 miles per hour upon seeing Miller’s marked patrol car. As he passed, Defendant leaned back in his seat in an apparent attempt to shield his face from Miller. Miller found this suspicious. He also noticed the truck bore a red and white Colorado license plate—which identified it as a rental vehicle. After making these observations, Miller followed Defendant. Miller pulled up beside Defendant, who yawned and raised his left hand to his face. Miller then ran a license plate check—confirming the truck’s rental status. He then entered the plate into a license-plate reader, or LPR, to see where the vehicle had traveled. The truck had been in Denver two days earlier. The day before, it was in Nevada near the California border. Miller observed that the truck had moved about seven hours in a nine-hour period. This suggested a quick round trip between California and Colorado in two days. 2  Appellate Case: 25-401