FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-50469
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:13-cr-00911-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JULIO ZAMUDIO-DIMAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 13, 2014**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Julio Zamudio-Dimas appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 24-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Zamudio-Dimas contends that the district court failed to use the correctly
calculated Guidelines range as an initial benchmark at sentencing because it failed
to grant a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1. We disagree. Departures
are not part of the Guidelines calculation, and we do not review the procedural
correctness of the denial of a requested departure. See United States v.
Evans-Martinez, 611 F.3d 635, 643 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[I]t is the pre-departure
Guidelines sentencing range that the district court must correctly calculate.”);
United States v. Ellis, 641 F.3d 411, 421 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In analyzing challenges
to a court’s upward and downward departures . . . under Section 5K, we do not
evaluate them for procedural correctness, but rather, as part of a sentence’s
substantive reasonableness.”). The district court satisfied its procedural obligations
by correctly calculating the Guidelines range without the fast-track departure.
Zamudio-Dimas also contends that the district court imposed a substantively
unreasonable sentence because it did not grant the fast-track departure. The district
court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Zamudio-Dimas’s sentence. See Gall
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 24-month sentence, in the middle of
the Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including
Zamudio-Dimas’s extensive history of immigration violations. See id.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-50469