9th Circuit upholds 20-year drug sentence for Hawaii man, finding no error in his criminal…
United States v. Santana
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
9th Circuit upholds 20-year drug sentence for Hawaii man, finding no error in his criminal history calculation and no need for a separate ruling on a sentencing reduction he was ineligible for.
Why it matters
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the 240-month prison sentence of Shawn Pauahi Santana, who pleaded guilty to methamphetamine conspiracy and distribution charges in Hawaii. The court found no error in how the district court calculated his criminal history score, because his prior 2013 sentences fell within the required ten-year window. The court also ruled the district court did not need to explicitly address his request for a sentencing reduction called 'safety valve' relief, because a separate finding that he was a leader in the drug conspiracy made him automatically ineligible for it.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects criminal defendants in federal drug cases who seek safety valve relief but have also been found to play a leadership role in a drug conspiracy. It also serves as guidance for federal district courts in Hawaii and elsewhere in the Ninth Circuit on when an explicit safety valve ruling is required.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 15, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 15, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 15, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Shawn Pauahi Santana pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute in the District of Hawaii. He was sentenced to 240 months in prison followed by five years of supervised release. On appeal, he raised two arguments: first, that the district court wrongly counted his 2013 convictions for domestic battery and driving under the influence when calculating his criminal history score under the Sentencing Guidelines; and second, that the district court failed to explicitly rule on his request for 'safety valve' relief, which can allow a judge to sentence below a mandatory minimum in certain drug cases. On the criminal history issue, the Ninth Circuit applied a 'plain error' standard because Santana had not raised the objection at sentencing. Under the Sentencing Guidelines, a prior sentence counts toward criminal history if it was imposed within ten years of when the current offense began. Santana himself admitted in his plea agreement that his drug conspiracy began 'by at least October 2022,' which put both 2013 sentences within that ten-year window. The court therefore found no plain error in the calculation. On the safety valve issue, the court explained that a defendant is ineligible for safety valve relief if he was found to be an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the criminal activity. The district court had already applied a sentencing enhancement based on exactly that finding, and Santana did not challenge it. Because that finding made him categorically ineligible for safety valve relief, the district court had no obligation to separately address or rule on the safety valve request. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence in full. The panel noted that Santana had waived his right to appeal as part of his plea agreement, but the court assumed without deciding that he could get past that waiver, and then ruled against him on the merits anyway. There was no dissent; the panel was unanimous. The ruling does not appear to create new legal standards, but it does reinforce that an unchallenged leadership role finding under the Sentencing Guidelines automatically forecloses safety valve eligibility without requiring a separate explicit ruling from the trial court.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-2933 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:24-cr-00022-LEK-1 v. MEMORANDUM* SHAWN PAUAHI SANTANA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Leslie E. Kobayashi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2026** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: SMITH, MILLER, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Shawn Pauahi Santana appeals the district court’s judgment sentencing him to 240 months of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. Santana challenges the district court’s calculation of his criminal history score under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”) and its failure to explicitly rule on his request for “safety valve” relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f). See Pulsifer v. United States, 601 U.S. 124, 128 (2024). We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. In his plea agreement, Santana waived his right to appeal the district court’s sentence. He now argues that the district court’s oral statements during his change- of-plea hearing vitiated the appellate waiver. We assume without deciding that Santana can overcome the appellate waiver in his plea agreement. But see Hunter v. United States, No. 24-1063, 608 U.S. ---, 2026 WL 1751815, at *6 (U.S. June 18, 2026). Even so, Santana’s claims fail on the merits. See United States v. Wells, 29 F.4th 580, 585 n.1 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[A] plea agreement’s appeal waiver does not divest our court of jurisdiction to hear an appeal.”). 1. We review for plain error Santana’s unpreserved argument that the district court erred in its Guidelines calculation. Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189, 194 (2016). In determining a defendant’s criminal history score, a district court considers any prior sentence “that was imposed within ten years of the defendant’s commencement of the instant offense.” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(2) (2025). The district court credited Santana’s 2013 sentences for domestic battery 2 25-2933 and driving under the influence in determining his criminal history score. Santana admitted in his plea agreement that the conspiracy for which he was convicted began “by at least October 2022,” within ten years of both prior sentences. Thus, the district court did not plainly err in calculating Santana’s criminal history score. 2. We review de novo a district court’s interpretation of § 3553(f), but “review for clear error the district court’s factual determination that a particular defendant is eligible for [safety-valve] relief.” United States v. Salazar, 61 F.4th 723, 726 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). The district court applied a two-level sentencing enhancement after finding that Santana served as “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” in the drug conspiracy under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). Santana does not challenge that finding. But a defendant cannot qualify for safety-valve relief if he was “an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor,” § 3553(f)(4), so this finding made Santana ineligible for safety-valve relief. See United States v. Doe, 778 F.3d 814, 826 (9th Cir. 2015); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 cmt. n.3(A). The district court did not need to explicitly rule on Santana’s eligibility for safety-valve relief because its finding on the aggravating-role enhancement made him categorically ineligible for this relief. Cf. United States v. Real-Hernandez, 90 F.3d 356, 360 (9th Cir. 1996) (vacating and remanding for resentencing when district court failed to “provide reasons for agreeing or refusing to apply section 5C1.2 at the time of sentencing” (emphasis added)). 3 25-2933 AFFIRMED. 4 25-2933
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.