FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 28 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-50474
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:14-cr-01892-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LUIS GOMEZ-PEREZ, a.k.a. Luis Perez-
Gomez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 20, 2016**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Luis Gomez-Perez appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 16-month custodial sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed
following his guilty-plea conviction for being a removed alien found in the United
*
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).
States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291, and we affirm.
Gomez-Perez contends that the district court abused its discretion by
denying the parties’ joint request for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K3.1.
However, the record reflects that the district court properly based its denial of the
fast-track departure on individualized factors, rather than a blanket policy of
denying fast-track departures to a certain group of defendants. See United States v.
Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015).
We likewise reject Gomez-Perez’s argument that the district court’s denial
of the fast-track departure improperly interfered with the prosecutor’s exercise of
discretion in plea bargaining or otherwise violated the separation of powers
doctrine. See id. at 1183.
Finally, Gomez-Perez argues that his custodial sentence and term of
supervised release are substantively unreasonable in light of the mitigating factors
and the court’s allegedly erroneous denial of the fast-track departure. The district
court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51
(2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the applicable 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. See id.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-50474