Appellate Case: 24-1050 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 21, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 24-1050 (D.C. No. 1:16-CR-00022-PAB-1) ANTHONY MICHAEL SALAZAR, (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________
Before MATHESON, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Anthony Michael Salazar violated the terms of his supervised release on four
separate occasions. Each time the court imposed (1) a prison sentence to be followed by
a term of supervised release and (2) a special condition for medication compliance and
random blood tests. In the fourth revocation proceedings, he did not object to the special
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Appellate Case: 24-1050 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2025 Page: 2
condition, but he now challenges it on appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and reviewing for plain error, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2015, Mr. Salazar pled guilty to one count of failing to update his sex offender
registration in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
(“SORNA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). The district court sentenced him to 12 months in
prison and five years of supervised release. One of his supervised release special
conditions was that he “participate in a mental-health treatment program” and “take any
mental-health medications as prescribed.” ROA, Vol. I at 14. Mr. Salazar did not appeal.
Over the next eight years, Mr. Salazar violated the terms of his supervised release four
times.
First, in 2017, after finding that Mr. Salazar had violated terms of his supervised
release, the district court sentenced him to 60 months in prison, to be followed by five
years of supervised release. The court imposed the following special condition:
You must remain medication compliant and must take all medications that are prescribed by your treating psychiatrist. You must cooperate with random blood tests as requested by your treating psychiatrist and/or supervising probation officer to ensure that a therapeutic level of [your] prescribed medications is maintained.
ROA, Vol. I Supp. at 18. He did not object to this special condition, and he did not
appeal.
Second, in 2021, the district court again found that Mr. Salazar had violated the
terms of his supervised release. It sentenced him to nine months in prison, to be followed
2 Appellate Case: 24-1050 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2025 Page: 3
by five years of supervised release, and again imposed the special condition to “remain
medication compliant” and cooperate with “random blood draws” as required by his
treatment provider. Id. at 27-30. This time Mr. Salazar objected to the special condition.
The district court recognized that it needed to make particularized findings of compelling
circumstances for the special condition. It noted that the discharge summary from
Teaching Humane Existence (“THE”) treatment program said that Mr. Salazar had
“refused medications” and “attempt[ed] to dictate what medications he was receiving.”
Id. at 51, 53. The court also said that Mr. Salazar’s “pattern of manipulation,” including
manipulation “regarding his medications poses a real threat to the public.” Id. at 54.
Mr. Salazar appealed but then dismissed the appeal before filing his opening brief.
Third, in 2022, the district court again found that Mr. Salazar had violated terms of
his supervised release, and imposed the same special condition. It sentenced him to
12 months in prison, to be followed by 10 years of supervised release. He did not object
to the special condition and did not appeal.
Fourth, in 2023, the district court again found that Mr. Salazar had violated the
terms of his supervised release. The Probation Office filed a Supervised Release
Violation Report stating he (1) still had compliance issues with THE treatment, (2) was
discharged from THE due to deceptive and manipulative behavior, (3) presented the same
issues and risk level leading to treatment termination, and (4) used an unapproved
internet device containing communications with pedophiles and inappropriate photos.
The court sentenced him to 12 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. It
imposed the same special condition. He did not object to the special condition. But,
3 Appellate Case: 24-1050 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2025 Page: 4
unlike the previous three revocations in which the court imposed the special condition,
this time Mr. Salazar attempts to challenge it on appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mr. Salazar argues the district court erred by failing to make
particularized findings to support the special condition. Aplt. Br. at 6-9 (citing, inter alia,
United States v. Malone, 937 F.3d 1325, 1327 (10th Cir. 2019)). Because he failed to
make this objection at the fourth revocation hearing, we review for plain error.
Plain error review requires Mr. Salazar “to establish that (1) the district court
committed error; (2) the error was plain—that is, it was obvious under current well-
settled law; (3) the error affected the defendant's substantial rights; and (4) the error
seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
United States v. Booker, 63 F.4th 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2023) (alterations and quotations
omitted).
Even if Mr. Salazar could satisfy the first two plain error requirements, he cannot
satisfy the third—that any error affected his substantial rights. “Satisfying the third prong
of plain-error review . . . ‘[generally] means that the error must have affected the outcome
of the district court proceedings.’” United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727, 732
(10th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 632 (2002)).
“To meet this burden, the appellant must show ‘a reasonable probability that, but for the
error claimed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Id. at 733
(quoting United States v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 24-1050 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 21, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 24-1050 (D.C. No. 1:16-CR-00022-PAB-1) ANTHONY MICHAEL SALAZAR, (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________
Before MATHESON, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
Anthony Michael Salazar violated the terms of his supervised release on four
separate occasions. Each time the court imposed (1) a prison sentence to be followed by
a term of supervised release and (2) a special condition for medication compliance and
random blood tests. In the fourth revocation proceedings, he did not object to the special
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. 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. Appellate Case: 24-1050 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2025 Page: 2
condition, but he now challenges it on appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and reviewing for plain error, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2015, Mr. Salazar pled guilty to one count of failing to update his sex offender
registration in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act
(“SORNA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). The district court sentenced him to 12 months in
prison and five years of supervised release. One of his supervised release special
conditions was that he “participate in a mental-health treatment program” and “take any
mental-health medications as prescribed.” ROA, Vol. I at 14. Mr. Salazar did not appeal.
Over the next eight years, Mr. Salazar violated the terms of his supervised release four
times.
First, in 2017, after finding that Mr. Salazar had violated terms of his supervised
release, the district court sentenced him to 60 months in prison, to be followed by five
years of supervised release. The court imposed the following special condition:
You must remain medication compliant and must take all medications that are prescribed by your treating psychiatrist. You must cooperate with random blood tests as requested by your treating psychiatrist and/or supervising probation officer to ensure that a therapeutic level of [your] prescribed medications is maintained.
ROA, Vol. I Supp. at 18. He did not object to this special condition, and he did not
appeal.
Second, in 2021, the district court again found that Mr. Salazar had violated the
terms of his supervised release. It sentenced him to nine months in prison, to be followed
2 Appellate Case: 24-1050 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2025 Page: 3
by five years of supervised release, and again imposed the special condition to “remain
medication compliant” and cooperate with “random blood draws” as required by his
treatment provider. Id. at 27-30. This time Mr. Salazar objected to the special condition.
The district court recognized that it needed to make particularized findings of compelling
circumstances for the special condition. It noted that the discharge summary from
Teaching Humane Existence (“THE”) treatment program said that Mr. Salazar had
“refused medications” and “attempt[ed] to dictate what medications he was receiving.”
Id. at 51, 53. The court also said that Mr. Salazar’s “pattern of manipulation,” including
manipulation “regarding his medications poses a real threat to the public.” Id. at 54.
Mr. Salazar appealed but then dismissed the appeal before filing his opening brief.
Third, in 2022, the district court again found that Mr. Salazar had violated terms of
his supervised release, and imposed the same special condition. It sentenced him to
12 months in prison, to be followed by 10 years of supervised release. He did not object
to the special condition and did not appeal.
Fourth, in 2023, the district court again found that Mr. Salazar had violated the
terms of his supervised release. The Probation Office filed a Supervised Release
Violation Report stating he (1) still had compliance issues with THE treatment, (2) was
discharged from THE due to deceptive and manipulative behavior, (3) presented the same
issues and risk level leading to treatment termination, and (4) used an unapproved
internet device containing communications with pedophiles and inappropriate photos.
The court sentenced him to 12 months in prison and 10 years of supervised release. It
imposed the same special condition. He did not object to the special condition. But,
3 Appellate Case: 24-1050 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2025 Page: 4
unlike the previous three revocations in which the court imposed the special condition,
this time Mr. Salazar attempts to challenge it on appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, Mr. Salazar argues the district court erred by failing to make
particularized findings to support the special condition. Aplt. Br. at 6-9 (citing, inter alia,
United States v. Malone, 937 F.3d 1325, 1327 (10th Cir. 2019)). Because he failed to
make this objection at the fourth revocation hearing, we review for plain error.
Plain error review requires Mr. Salazar “to establish that (1) the district court
committed error; (2) the error was plain—that is, it was obvious under current well-
settled law; (3) the error affected the defendant's substantial rights; and (4) the error
seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
United States v. Booker, 63 F.4th 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2023) (alterations and quotations
omitted).
Even if Mr. Salazar could satisfy the first two plain error requirements, he cannot
satisfy the third—that any error affected his substantial rights. “Satisfying the third prong
of plain-error review . . . ‘[generally] means that the error must have affected the outcome
of the district court proceedings.’” United States v. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d 727, 732
(10th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 632 (2002)).
“To meet this burden, the appellant must show ‘a reasonable probability that, but for the
error claimed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Id. at 733
(quoting United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 82 (2004)). No such
probability exists in this case.
4 Appellate Case: 24-1050 Document: 51-1 Date Filed: 02/21/2025 Page: 5
At Mr. Salazar’s second supervised release revocation proceeding, the district
court made particularized findings of compelling circumstances that justified the special
condition. The record of the fourth revocation proceeding does not show that his
condition or his compliance had improved. Also, the Supervised Release Violation
Report supported the special condition. Finally, the district court stated that Mr. Salazar
had been manipulative regarding his mental health treatment, had misused the internet,
and had continued his history of noncompliance with sex offender treatment.
Specifically, the court found—consistent with its findings at the second revocation
hearing—that Mr. Salazar might “frustrate” efforts to treat his mental health “by coming
up with all sorts of objections and conditions and personal opinions about that treatment.”
ROA, Vol. III at 40.
For these reasons, Mr. Salazar has not met his burden to show plain error.
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court’s judgment.
Entered for the Court
Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge