FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50542
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-02509-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NOE ESTRADA-MARTINEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Noe Estrada-Martinez appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 21-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for
being a removed alien found in the United States, 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).
Estrada-Martinez contends that the district court procedurally erred by
failing to use the advisory Guidelines as the starting point for its sentencing
analysis. We review for plain error. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608
F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). Although the district court initially indicated that
it was not inclined to grant a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1 because
it would result in an unacceptable sentencing range, the record reflects that the
court provided the parties an opportunity to argue in favor of the requested
departure before denying it. It then correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines
range, and kept that range in mind while weighing the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
sentencing factors. The court did not procedurally err. See United States v.
Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2015).
Estrada-Martinez also contends that his sentence is substantively
unreasonable in light of the district court’s denial of the fast-track departure. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Estrada-Martinez’s sentence.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively
reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the
circumstances, including Estrada-Martinez’s significant immigration history and
failure to be deterred by prior sentences. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51 (2007).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50542