United States v. Edwin Salinas

── United States v. Edwin Salinas ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 25-2916 ___________________________ United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Edwin Giovanni Salinas Defendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Northern ____________ Submitted: March 19, 2026 Filed: May 7, 2026 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SHEPHERD, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. On November 26, 2022, law enforcement officers stopped Berta Gonzales for speeding. The defendant in this case, Edwin Salinas, was riding with her. After Gonzales pulled over, the officers asked for her name, and she gave them a false one. When they discovered this, they arrested her and called a tow truck, since Salinas’s driver’s license was revoked. While the officers waited for the tow truck, they conducted an inventory search of Gonzales’s car and discovered a backpack containing approximately 16 pounds of fentanyl. A grand jury indicted Gonzales and Salinas for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846, and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of § 841(a)(1). Gonzales entered a written plea agreement by which she pled guilty to count one but count two was dismissed. Salinas did not enter a plea agreement, so his case proceeded to trial. Gonzales testified against Salinas, claiming he asked her “[t]o give him a ride . . . because he was going to visit his family” and that the backpack and drugs were his. Gonzales also testified that Salinas told her, while the two were being transported to a pretrial hearing, that she “should have never pointed that backpack towards [him].” The jury found Salinas guilty of both counts, and the district court 1 sentenced him to 365 months of imprisonment after we vacated the life sentence it initially imposed and remanded for resentencing. See United States v. Salinas, 132 F.4th 1083, 1094 (8th Cir. 2025). Salinas now appeals his 365-month sentence, arguing the district court incorrectly calculated his Guidelines range by applying an obstruction of justice enhancement based on his statement that Gonzales “should have never pointed that backpack towards [him]” and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. We affirm. Starting with Salinas’s Guidelines range, we review the district court’s calculation of the defendant’s Guidelines range de novo and the factual findings underpinning the calculation for clear error. See United States v. Peithman, 917 F.3d 635, 653 (8th Cir. 2019). The district court applied a two-level obstruction of justice enhancement to Salinas’s base offense level pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n 2024). This section states, [i]f (1) the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the 1 The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. -2-  investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense of conviction, and (2) the obstructive conduct related to (A) the defendant’s offense of conviction and any relevant conduct; or (B) a closely related offense, increase the offens