United States v. Eddy Salinas

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-10825 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/04/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10825 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

EDDY ALEXANDER SALINAS, Defendant- Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:24-cr-60075-MD-1 ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Eddy Salinas appeals his total sentence of 240 months’ im- prisonment for two counts of distribution of 40 grams or more of fentanyl and one count of conspiracy to possess 400 grams or more USCA11 Case: 25-10825 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/04/2026 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10825

of fentanyl with intent to distribute. Salinas argues that his sen- tence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to consider and weigh all relevant conduct when it denied his request for a two-level minor-role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The government counters that Salinas, as a “career of- fender,” is categorically ineligible to receive the reduction.1 The government is correct. “[M]inor role adjustments are not available to [career offenders] sentenced under § 4B1.1,” which “by its express terms, only authorizes an adjustment based on ac- ceptance of responsibility.” United States v. Jeter, 329 F.3d 1229, 1230 (11th Cir. 2003). The district court found Salinas to be a career offender. Salinas withdrew his objections to this enhancement be- low and thereby abandoned it for purposes of appeal. United States v. Horsfall, 552 F.3d 1275, 1283–84 (11th Cir. 2008). And he hasn’t presented the issue in his appellate brief. Salinas therefore cannot receive a minor-role reduction, and the district court did not err in denying this reduction. AFFIRMED.

1 The government did not raise this argument before the district court, but we

may affirm a district court’s Guidelines calculation for any reason supported by the record. See United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1191 (11th Cir. 2015).