NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 3 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-50047
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:17-cr-03166-LAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JULIAN RAMIREZ-REYES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 27, 2018**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Julian Ramirez-Reyes appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 58-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.
Ramirez-Reyes contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing
*
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).
to address his non-frivolous arguments for a lower sentence. We review for plain
error, see United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir.
2010), and conclude that there is none. The record reflects that the district court
considered Ramirez-Reyes’s mitigating arguments and was not persuaded that they
warranted a lower sentence. See United States v. Sandoval-Orellana, 714 F.3d
1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 2013).
Ramirez-Reyes next contends that the district court erred by denying the
parties’ joint request for a two-level departure for fast track. He argues that the
court acted pursuant to an improper blanket policy of denying fast-track
adjustments to defendants who have previously received one. The record belies
Ramirez-Reyes’s claim. The district court expressly disavowed having a policy
against fast-track departures, and explained that it was denying a fast-track
departure in Ramirez-Reyes’s case because of his particular circumstances,
especially his immigration record. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the adjustment or in imposing an above-Guidelines sentence. See United
States v. Rosales-Gonzales, 801 F.3d 1177, 1183-84 (9th Cir. 2015). Contrary to
Ramirez-Reyes’s contention, the court considered unwarranted sentencing
disparities, and the 58-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the
totality of the circumstances, including the length of Ramirez-Reyes’s prior
sentences for the same offense. See id. at 1184-85; United States v. Burgos-
2 18-50047
Ortega, 777 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.
3 18-50047