NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50036
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:15-cr-02562-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LUIS PEREZ-RIOS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Luis Perez-Rios appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges
the 24-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 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).
Perez-Rios contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying
the parties’ joint recommendation for a fast-track departure under U.S.S.G.
§ 5K3.1 because the district court allegedly based its determination on a
disagreement with the Congressional policy that authorizes fast-track departures.
Contrary to Perez-Rios’s argument, the record reflects that the district court
properly based its denial of the fast-track departure on the individualized factors of
his case, including his substantial criminal history and the need for deterrence. See
United States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015)
(district court must consider individual factors and exercise its discretion when
evaluating whether to grant a fast-track departure).
Perez-Rios next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable in
light of the district court’s allegedly erroneous denial of the fast-track departure.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Perez-Rios’s sentence.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The above-Guidelines sentence
is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the
totality of the circumstances. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.
AFFIRMED.
2 16-50036